With Christmas now behind us and the new year about to dawn, there's no stopping the onset of another presidential election cycle.
Before I get to a thread from Christian ethicist/apologist Andrew T. Walker on the role evangelical leaders played in setting up this cultural moment, let me remind you that the Iowa caucuses hit in a matter of weeks, both parties will likely have their nominees by mid-spring, and then it's a grueling stretch of accusations, smears, media hit jobs, pandering, promising, panicking, posturing before November 5th.
Not that it will end there. No, that will just commence the inevitable accusations of voter fraud, vote harvesting, electoral tampering, campaign malfeasance, Russian interference, stolen elections, and illegitimate presidencies. When it comes to this inevitable descent into contempt and complaint, it doesn't matter much anymore who the candidates are - it's party driven tribalism, fueled histrionically by the wonders of social media.
The sad spectacle is an important reminder for Christians that there is no hope to be found in any of it. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those who foolishly put confidence in the hands of any prince or party of men will end up betrayed and bewildered. We have a better road to travel, a perfect Prince to worship, and an everlasting kingdom to joyfully place our loyalty and citizenship.
These important truths do not, however, excuse any unwillingness on our part to bear witness to the Moral Law that God has written upon the hearts of all men. They do not permit us to pretend there is no reason to condemn wickedness and promote righteousness through the political channels before us. They do not justify a cowardice or compromise that suggests a moral equivalence in all candidates, causes, and parties because, "Well, they're all corrupt."
That is a trap of the enemy, and he has begun to wield it very effectively against Christians in recent election cycles. The lack of a perfect candidate or party does not rationalize support of any candidate or party. There are non-negotiables for Christians of conscience. There are lines that cannot be crossed, barriers that should not be blurred, and platforms that must be rejected.
That brings us to Walker's thread. He began with a stern, important warning against those who draw an unjustifiable moral equivalence between the state of the two major political parties in America.
His point was further clarified in an exchange with a Christian minister named Josh Howerton:
That line of Walker's is so critical: "To act as though there is moral asymmetry (between the moral state of the platforms and policy preferences of the two major political parties) belies reality."
Indeed it does. So how does it happen? How do honest and earnest Christians become confused and misled on this fairly obvious point? Here's the most common way:
This is exactly right. It's what happened to once-helpful Christian commentators like David French. His embrace of this flawed ethic helped land him a lucrative writing gig with The New York Times, but came at the incredibly high price of misleading countless believers. And he's far from alone.
Which is why it's a certainty that though the full narrative of the 2024 election is yet to be written, this same misdirection will be an underlying current pressing believers to compromise their convictions for a seat at the culture's "tolerant" table.
