2025 Resolution: Vote like a Christian

I can already hear the messaging

It’s a new year, which means at least two things. First, people are toying with the idea of the New Year’s Resolution (I have some thoughts on that here). Second, we are about to gear up for our federal election cycle in Canada, with the showdown scheduled for October, barring an early snap election, of course. Christians have different ideas on why we should vote, how we should vote, and how we view Christian political engagement altogether.

Over the past five years especially (though I know it goes far beyond that) I have observed certain political rhetoric that has not only guided Christians in their political engagement, but I believe has justified both a compromised and contra-biblical approach.

“I’m not voting for my pastor; I’m voting for my Prime Minister.” This is used to justify voting for someone who is godless and antichrist, so long as they have preferable policies, because character, they say, doesn’t matter when electing people into office. “It’s the lesser of two evils.” Same kind of justification as the first one. “We can vote the right people in and transform the party from the inside.” While this seems noble, and should be possible, in reality, the last forty years have shown us that this mentality only pushes the political Overton Window Leftward, and the result has been Conservatives that are more liberal than Liberals were thirty years ago. “So, you’re saying we should just throw away our vote and watch our country plunge into chaos?” This is a strawman, because I would never advocate for not voting. Also, our country has been careening down the slippery slope of godlessness for forty years now, despite the aforementioned political tactics, so I don’t think it will suddenly begin to work this time.

Let’s try another approach

It might be helpful to begin with the Scriptures to better understand these issues. The COVID-era has forced Christians to wrestle with the question, “What is the role of the State according to God’s Word?” As we’ve laboured over a correct interpretation of Romans 13, the role of the State is two-fold. They are to punish evildoers (those who break God’s Law via crimes) and reward those who positively keep God’s Law. If we include the requirement to protect borders from invading nations, then we have a simple triumvirate of Stately duties.

We can take the State’s roles in punishing those who transgress God’s prohibitions and translate them into their “positive” reciprocal; we can go from what the State punishes to what the State is obligated to protect and secure by way of enforcement. Put even more simply, the State is required to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, given to the people by God, by punishing those who break God’s Law and infringe on those very same rights and freedoms.

For example, if the State punishes those who commit murder, what they are actually doing is protecting the rights of citizens to live, and to not have their lives unjustly snuffed out. If the State punishes those who steal, what they are actually doing is protecting the rights of citizens to own private property, and to not have the property of the people unjustly taken. If the State punishes those who commit rape, what they are actually doing is protecting the rights of citizens to not be sexually assaulted. We could apply this to every law the State is required to enforce – there is a corresponding right and/or freedom they must protect and secure, and this is their duty before God.

The worst job interview and hiring ever

With this in mind, I think we can safely say that the most foundational right of citizens, the one right upon which every other right is predicated, is the right to life. Afterall, if you are not alive, you can’t be assaulted or the victim of theft. The first and most important right, therefore, is the right to life and to not have one’s life unjustly ended. This means that the first and foundational role of the State is to protect the innocent lives of its citizens. This is a base level requirement. If elected officials cannot do this, then not only can they not effectively protect subsequent rights, they simply cannot be trusted to do their job at all.

Suppose you are interviewing someone for a position as a high school math teacher. The most important part of their job is to teach high school math. I mean, that’s a given, right? They might have other duties, such as assign homework, correct tests, and produce report cards, but if they can’t do their fundamental job, they are not qualified to teach. And if in the course of that interview they tell you, in no uncertain terms, “I will not teach high school math. I’ll do lots of other good things, but I will not teach high school math. In fact, I will oppose the teaching of high school math.” I imagine you would not hire that person.

Or suppose someone wants to be hired as an engineer, specifically to design safe bridges, and in the course of the interview they say, “I will not be designing safe bridges. I will design unsafe bridges, and I will design safe tunnels, and I will also oppose the designing of safe bridges.” You most certainly would not hire that person. It doesn’t matter how qualified they are. It doesn’t matter how much better they are than other applicants. You will wait until the right person applies, because if they can’t do their foundational job, they are woefully unqualified.

Against a “warm body in politics” approach

Let’s apply this same thinking to the State, shall we (in a more logical form):

● If a person is only qualified to do their job so long as they are willing and able to perform their most foundational and fundamental task, and,

● If they should not be hired, appointed, or elected to a particular position if they will actively oppose the completion of said foundational and fundamental task, even if they promise to do other lesser tasks, and,

● If this renders the person utterly unqualified to serve in that position,

● It follows that any person who will not protect the rights of all Canadians to live and not have their innocent lives ended unjustly - the most foundational and fundamental task for the State - is totally unqualified and should be neither elected nor appointed to that position.

Read that over again if you need to, and take it slow to make sure you get the flow of the argument. Once you get it, ask yourself, do you agree with these propositions? If not, you have to make the case why not. You have to prove one or more of the following three things:

1. A person who is neither willing nor able to do their most foundational and fundamental task is in fact qualified for that job.

2. A person who will actively oppose the completion of the most foundational and fundamental task in a job should in fact be hired, elected, or appointed.

3. Failing in one or both of these does in fact not render a person utterly unqualified.

In order to try to prove one of these three propositions, I believe that you will either have to abandon the Word of God, make an illogical and irrational argument, or do rhetorical gymnastics. We would apply my original argument to every person in any industry, be it a police officer, baker, or barber. Therefore, if we are going to be consistent, we have to apply the same standard to Statecraft politics. Otherwise, we are allowing ideology and presupposed commitments to rule the day – and that is simply unchristian.

Any current discomfort with my words and argument might be poking a sore spot, or maybe even exposing some deep-rooted compromise, or maybe even too much trust in the State to care for us and save us from disaster. But again, unless you can make an argument against what is laid out above, the only conclusion is to say that any person who is unwilling or unable to perform their most foundational and fundamental task in a job, or who will actively oppose the completion of that task, is totally unqualified to serve as an elected official in the State, and therefore cannot be elected or appointed to office.

And now for the medicine

This means that any person who is either unwilling or unable to protect the rights of all Canadians from having their innocent lives unjustly ended, or who will actively work against the completion of this role, is unqualified to serve in office, and Christians should not vote for such a person. Otherwise, we are okay with the teacher who opposes teaching, or the doctor who opposes health care, or the baker who opposes baking. It doesn’t matter if they promise to do tasks number two, five, and seven; if they fail at doing task number one, they have no business serving in that capacity, and Christians should not support them. It also doesn’t matter if they will fail at their primary task slightly better than other people, ALL of them should be rejected by people who affirm God’s Word and His prescribed role for the State.

This means, if it hasn’t become overwhelming clear yet, that any person who is running for political office (regardless of their party affiliation, personality, or competency in a host of other areas) who will not protect Canadians’ right to life and to not have their lives snuffed out unjustly is unqualified and should not be supported by Christians.

What does this mean? If a candidate does not openly and strongly oppose the murder of pre-born babies, the slaughter that is in vitro fertilization, and doctor-assisted murder, they instantly disqualify themselves from being a viable candidate, they have no business serving as a civil servant, and Christians should not cast a vote for them, period. Full stop! If they tell you that they will ensure that countless Canadians will have their innocent lives, made in God’s image, snuffed out without protecting them, you have before you an antichrist supporter of murder, and imagine the Lord will be pleased if Christians offer their vote for such a person, who by the way, doesn’t meet God’s own standards for serving as a State official.

Time to get real uncomfortable here. This means that Christians would be hard-pressed, especially with the argument made in this article, to vote for anyone who is running for the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Green Party, the Conservative Party, and the PPC. 99.9% of every candidate for these parties are disqualified based on God’s requirements for the State. However, even for the 0.01% of the candidates who might meet the standard, the truth is they represent a party and a party leader that will do nothing to protect the rights of all Canadians to live and not have their lives snuffed out unjustly.

I believe this means that if Christians want to both honour and obey God’s Word, and if we want to have elected officials that also fulfil their God-designed duties, we should only be voting for people and parties that are willing to protect the rights of all Canadians to live freely, and who will work toward equal justice for citizens, including the very small ones and the very old ones. Maybe the reason why our country is in such a mess is because for too long we have abandoned these principles in favour of pragmatism. Perhaps we have trusted in our strategy as well as the State to save us from cultural calamity too strongly. Maybe, just maybe, if we abandon what we’ve been doing politically for fifty years, we will finally see the increase of God’s blessings instead of the increase of His judgement upon our nation.

It’s time to vote like Christians.