Why I Vote

Unblind Love and Natural Law

I have voted in every presidential election and mid-term since 1980, and I will vote in this one. I vote because it’s my civic duty, a moral obligation, and a sacred privilege. Previous generations made unspeakable sacrifices so I can have this micro-influence on the direction of my country. I vote because Jesus calls me to love my neighbor and its loving to influence a society to become more just and merciful, more prosperous and peaceful.

Unblind Love

True love is not blind. It’s a calculated decision to behave in a way that benefits another person, even when the other person doesn’t yet see the benefit. Every parent knows what this means. Some of my neighbors say they want the same thing for our country, but they disagree with me on how to achieve it. I don’t hate them for it. Loving people I disagree with is just a part of following Christ. Their vote may cancel mine. They may believe that I don’t know any better, so they vote differently than I do for my own good. I’m certain I’m voting against them for theirs.

So, I vote.

While we might be inclined to vote to only protect and promote our own personal interests, love for neighbor requires us to vote for the common good. But most of the time, what works for the common good is also in the long-term best interest of my family and me. So, I vote.

I haven’t always liked the person I’ve voted for, and I’m glad that voting for someone doesn’t require me to admire them. In two presidential elections, I found the names on the ballot so unfit, I followed my conscience and wrote in my own candidates to go on record with my protest. Frankly, I’m finding fewer and fewer people on the political landscape I admire. People with political courage. People who tell the truth and honor their word. People who are consistent in their criticism, even if that means criticizing their own party. People with integrity. People who can give our morally confused nation the moral leadership it needs. People who recognize and follow the moral law of God.

The Moral Law

That doesn’t mean I vote only for professing Christians. After all, if a politician professed to be a Christian today just to garner more votes, he or she wouldn’t be the first. Besides, I believe a man or woman can be honorable even if they don’t believe in Christ. I have a lot of friends like that. In fact, we should expect our fellow citizens and government officials to be honorable people, even if they don’t profess Christ. The Apostle Paul confirmed that Gentiles without the Scriptures are still cognizant of God’s moral law, since “the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Ro. 2:15).

Theologians call this natural law, and it explains why we find a basic core of moral codes that resemble the Ten Commandments in every generation, culture, and religion. We inherently know it’s wrong to murder, cheat on our spouse, steal, and lie. The human heart is fallen, and the conscience is seared, so we need the revealed law found in Scripture to give our self-justifying wicked hearts greater moral clarity. But the moral law still resides in every human heart. We deny its existence and drown out its voice to our own peril.

What C.S. Lewis Saw In 1943

C.S Lewis saw his own nation moving away from natural law through the high-minded intellectual fads of his day. In 1943, Lewis addressed the moral relativism growing fashionable in the academy when he wrote his book, The Abolition of Man. Moral relativism couldn’t nurture the kind of leaders that England needed for the challenges ahead. Instead, wrote Lewis, it would cause an unraveling of a great culture, and when it unravels no one should be surprised. Here’s one of my favorite passages from The Abolition of Man. I hope you savor it like I do:

And all the time––such is the tragi-comedy of our situation––we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more “drive,” or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or “creativity.” In a sort of ghastly simplicity, we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

Not surprisingly, one of the world’s most famous atheists has lived long enough to see Lewis vindicated. Richard Dawkins has surveyed the moral and cultural landscape of England and now professes to be a “cultural Christian.” Not that he has repented of his sin and trusted in Christ alone for salvation. Rather, he sees the superior wisdom of Christian traditions and the ethical system taught by Jesus. He rightly concludes that by turning from it, England is committing cultural suicide. Dawkins spent a good part of his life trying to destroy Christianity, but now he is having second thoughts, and probably too late for England.

We find ourselves in a similar situation today in America. We are a culture that laughs at honor, mocks what is good, and ridicules what is right. I don’t know if it’s too late for us, but I’ll do all I can to faithfully follow Christ and love my country.

So yes, I’ll vote. Even if I’m not super excited about the candidates, I’ll not let that deter me from voting. I’ll pray and read and study and talk with wise and smart friends and pray some more, and then on Tuesday, November 5, I’ll vote. I intend to vote in a way that does the most good, or maybe, the least harm, for this beloved and beleagured nation of ours. A nation filled with men without chests. I’ll vote for the platform I judge to be closest to the natural law.

May I encourage you to vote too?

Joe Carter recently published this summary of party platforms on the social issues relevant to the election of 2024. He avoids personalities and focuses on policies. Maybe you can set aside some time in the coming days to give it some prayerful consideration.