In this article, I explore the intersection of Christian faith and civic responsibility, specifically focusing on the power of a Christian’s vote in shaping government policies. As a born-again believer, my supreme loyalty is to Jesus Christ, which informs my approach to voting in America. I argue that, according to Scripture, Christians must prioritize moral principles rooted in God’s Word when casting their vote, particularly in relation to the government’s role as outlined in Romans 13. By examining a concept Jesus mentioned called the “weightier matters of the law” and applying biblical triaging, I address common objections and misconceptions within the church and urge fellow believers to consider the severe consequences of their political choices, ensuring their vote aligns with God’s intentions for secular government.

While the article is long, it is necessary in threading the case together. At the end of the article, there are more examples to consider for how to triage in any given scenario.

For the purposes of this article’s context, my position in Christ is juxtaposed with my being an American citizen, second, with a responsibility to ensure I honor God with my civic responsibility. As a Christian who lives in America, I have, what a friend once called, “a slice of Caesar’s power” with my own vote. My vote is powerful; it has the ability to put one of two political powers in the driver’s seat of legislation in this country.

However, voting in America is not without its complications. I essentially have one vote, for (practically speaking) two political coalitions known as the Republican and Democratic parties that have positions on a number of issues. One of the downsides to the matter is this:

that singular vote has the potential to empower MANY different positions.

It would be nice if we could have a vote for each position, but we are not afforded that luxury regarding electing an entire political machine into the White House. You are not just voting for a President and Vice President, even though given the marketing, it FEELS as if that is the case. Rather, you are voting for lifetime federal court judges, potentially Supreme Court justices, and a whole staff of individuals who, by and large, align with the respective political coalition that is elected. Presidents come and go every four years, but their federal appointments and legislative changes can last decades after they are gone.

All that said, you must triage a set of moral principles in order to cast your ONE vote for MANY issues.

What is “Triaging”?

It means “the assignment of degrees of urgency to wounds or illnesses to decide the order of treatment of a large number of patients or casualties.” The medical world uses triage when determining what to take care of first when treating a patient, or, in general, which one to treat first depending on the severity of their issues compared to the others. I am using it colloquially for the context of this post.

Now, in order to determine these moral principles to begin triaging, if I am a Christian who happens to have a slice of political power that can be wielded in the realm of my country in order to help determine its laws: my first question should be,

“What is the main goal of secular government according to God?”

That makes sense, right? If I need to triage my moral principles in order to use my one vote that will empower a government structure in my country, and, as a Christian, I am supposed to derive said principles from what the Scriptures say about this topic, it follows that it should be my goal to use my vote to achieve that end as best as possible.

As it turns out, God does speak to what the CHIEF goal of secular government actually is. And since it is the chief goal, that means I, as a follower of Christ, am not authorized to come up with any other set of moral criteria by which I make such a weighty decision. That would be to set oneself up to be an adversary of God on this issue.

The Chief Goal of Secular Government

To find out what that aim is, let’s turn to Romans 13:1-4, which reads:

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

We see from the above section of Scripture that God has laws that He even expects secular governments to uphold. This is implied by the author invoking the terms “good” and “wrong.” The chief aim of a government, when functioning as it should, is put in place by God to strike fear into the hearts of people who would attempt/do evil and, effectually, rewarding good behavior by extension.

Any goal or set of principles one puts in front of this is an elevation of their own preferences. It is a subtle way to make yourself the chief authority on such a weighty matter.

Making it more practical with what I have seen in the church the last several years: I am not to allow what the world thinks of my vote to deter me from voting for the coalition that aligns the closest with Romans 13. I am not to think, “If unbelievers know I support a coalition they find detestable, I may lose my witness towards them!” If that is how you are voting – that is wrong.

Now that we have covered the chief aim of government: to bear the threat of the sword to punish evil in order to keep the moral fabric of society intact as best as is possible, the next question would likely be, “What kind of evil are we talking about in the above context?”

I think the simplest answer is really all malicious evil of any sort. However, remember the issue we as Christians in America face? ONE vote for MANY issues. That said, how should we triage all that God considers evil?

Moral Law Triaging Principles

Enter the “moral law triaging” principles we see in Scripture. Jesus Himself proof-texts this for us well in Matthew 23:23-24:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!”

The above verse should give anyone pause – myself included. Here, we have the Pharisees doing certain things right (tithing mint, dill, and cumin), but at the peril of what Jesus refers to as the “weightier matters of the law,” which He hardcodes to involving justice, mercy, and faithfulness. To be clear: we always need to strive to do EVERYTHING right; however, in the event two moral principles are at odds with each other, and one must prevail, it is important to understand how God chooses to triage.

When Jesus invoked “weightier matters of the law,” He is necessarily implying that there is a triage of priority to that law. This shouldn’t sound foreign to our own moral intuitions. Allow me to prove this with a thought experiment: if you could have your pick between two laws (and for the sake of the experiment, one MUST be legislated): the allowance that people can legally steal one thing worth $50 a month without penalty from whoever they wanted, or that someone could kill any one person a month without penalty.

Provided I am dealing with sane readers, you may not like either choice, but the choice is clear: you would rather allow legal stealing rather than legal murder.

In the scenario above, it isn’t hard because the right to live is the foundation by which any other liberty has its grounding. As, what should be, an unnecessary example: if a person is dead, the right to not have anything stolen from them is now pointless, right? You have no rights that can be conferred upon you when you are dead.

Within the Bible, I believe we see this triaging of the “weightier matters of the law” principle not only inferred in some places but stated more or less explicitly in others. We will look at some of these verses.

Triaging God’s Way

Genesis 9:6

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

One of the first laws God gives Noah when he exits the Ark is that of capital punishment to deter murder. It would seem this is a clear indication of God triaging His moral priorities. Why not mention adultery at this point? Surely that was also going on pre-flood? Why not theft? Likewise, that was probably rampant. Just as with God in the above narrative (we are made in His image, after all), this makes sense with our own sense of moral triaging: when giving people instructions for something they really mustn’t forget, we start with laying down laws that protect people from loss of life.

The purpose God lays out through Paul in Romans 13 when he uses the phrase “bear the sword” would clearly be mapped to using that threat in order to ensure a country’s citizens have rights that cannot be taken by any sort of force that would lead to violent oppression of its citizens and, ultimately, lead to unjust repression of their rights or lead to their death.

You should have the threat of the sword on your side as an American citizen to ensure you are free to go to work without always worrying if you would be assaulted, stolen from, murdered, raped, etc. If there were any party platform that wanted to explicitly legislate against the spirit and intent of that in any way, it wouldn’t matter how good their other policies are: a Christian shouldn’t vote for them. Why? Because if they decide to directly rebel against God’s mandate on secular national governments, they will not survive very long as a country, as they will store up God’s wrath.

I have heard Christians make something similar to the following argument:

“I just feel that God knows my heart. Since, in my heart, I am against abortion, it is okay if I vote for a Democratic candidate despite their trajectory being for more radical laws in this regard. I feel they are better regarding policy of being there for the foreigner, stranger, the poor, etc. Additionally, the opposing party has an arrogant and bombastic person leading them. If I want to maintain a voice in my unbelieving friends’ lives, I will be burning that bridge to vote for such a person.”

If one does not understand that God speaks to what a government’s job is in Romans 13, the above sentiment would seem MORE reasonable (not that I would agree). However, I believe there are several problems with the above position.

1. It Disregards God’s Main Intention for Government

It is likely when Romans 13 was written, Emperor Nero was in charge. Paul is then implying, even with a personally arrogant and, sometimes, unfair individual at the helm, that the structure of Roman law that was behind him was (at least on paper) fulfilling God’s intention for why that government existed in the first place.

As an American citizen, I merely look at the political platforms and ask, “Which one upholds actual laws that will prevent the violent oppression of its citizens and also laws that seek to protect them?” In this case, since Democrats want to legislate LEGAL MURDER OF THE UNBORN, it matters not what other policies they have in place or topics they talk about. There is now no amount of moral weight they have, even in aggregate, that should sway a Christian to vote for their priorities and against God’s. In that situation, a Christian is to be a “one-issue voter.” When I show God I am prioritizing His intentions for government, I am illustrating true faith in Him. All my responsibility would be is to ensure that I don’t vote in a government that will allow the sword to be legally wielded against the unborn (i.e., good) as opposed to violent criminals (i.e., the wrongdoer). Romans 13 clearly shows that just because Christ came into the world and established the second covenant, His intentions for laws in government have not changed.

2. It Elevates a False Sense of Loving Your Neighbor

There are people who feel if they voted for the Republican platform, that all of the opposing side’s insults appear to be correct (i.e., racist, bigots, homophobe, not loving and being welcoming to the foreigner, etc.). However, why does optics matter when following God? God cares about true justice, not merely the optics of justice for “bridge building.” You are supposed to first love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and strength. That means, first and foremost, I stand in solidarity with God, and then use that as a filter in what properly loving my neighbor is in any given context. I don’t want to make myself an adversary of God with my vote, all while attempting to love my neighbor in my own way.

3. It Assumes That the Only Unbelieving Neighbors Are Democrats

At risk of stating the obvious: not all Republicans are born-again Christians; however, they are still appalled by the Democrats’ position on abortion. What about them? You are willing to turn a non-Christian Republican off to the Gospel by casting your vote for a platform that is actively seeking to inverse God’s intentions for secular government? All because the leader of the Republican party is unpolished and can be overtly sinful as opposed to the opposing sides leader who has a more “polished” sinfulness? Again, respectfully, God didn’t tell you to use your own set of moral priorities to decide what secular government’s main goal is for its citizens. He has already told us that in Romans 13 through Paul.

4. It Is Ignorant of What Matters of Conscience Are, and Are Not, Biblically Speaking

People throw around the conscience argument in the church as if it has no objective criteria as to what constitutes it. It has morphed into somewhat of a Christian version of “moral relativism.” Biblically speaking, matters of conscience are always amoral in nature. Meaning, they are morally neutral: neither intrinsically good nor evil. Thus, if one participates in them, provided their conscience isn’t hounding them about it, they are free to proceed and enjoy.

Paul speaks to this in Romans 14:5-7:

“5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

In the above verse, what do you notice about the list that a Christian has freedom of choice in?

• Day of worship
• Food

Notice these are amoral issues. Meaning they are not intrinsically evil to participate in.

However, notice what Paul says about the “deeds of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21, which will never be a matter of conscience to a believer. The answer is always “no” regarding endorsement or participation:

“19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Bringing this full-circle to your vote: it is not a matter of conscience in this current political environment. One party seeks, through legislation, to reverse God’s intention for government mentioned in Romans 13 (Democrat), and another more closely aligns with that ideal in Romans 13 (Republican). This is a good segue to the last point…

5. Saying “God Knows My Heart” Implies That Even If You Happen to Be Wrong, You Are Absolved for the Political Machine You Helped Empower to Shape Your Nation.

In Luke 12:47-48, what Jesus says happens to logically address this position:

“47 And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

We can see above that anyone who does something that “deserves a beating,” if they have knowledge of what God’s will is in a matter, will be beaten severely. However, in the event they were really confused and lacked a certain degree of knowledge, they still have to be beaten – just with light blows.

If you think about it, this kind of negates the “God sees my heart and understands” sentiment. If you vote for a political coalition that seeks to undermine God’s primary purpose of government and allow your subjective and unbiblical criteria prevail: you are not off the hook for empowering that. It’s just now a matter of what kind of beating is coming: a light or a severe one? Think about it: “Well, the reason I voted for the party that wants to keep MURDER legal is because I feel their border policies are more Christ-like, or they help the poor more.” Even if such feelings are true, you weren’t to use that criterion to cast your vote in the first place when that same party has explicit policies that will reverse God’s intention for government. And, in actuality, securing the border IS also a part of the primary reason the government should exist: to protect its own citizens and enforce those laws. To punish law-breakers. Lastly, while we want to help the poor, that is not the government’s primary job. In the above scenario, different moral principles are being used over and above God’s primary purpose for government.

When a government seeks to explicitly legislate that something should be legal that God says is absolutely illegal – it is abdicating its primary purpose that God erected the institution for. Its primary purpose, again, is to punish the wrongdoer so that people who want to do what is right are free to do so.

There may be many things that would be good to one day revisit; however, in our current system, we need to ensure the whole thrust of the political engine we vote for aligns best with God’s intention mentioned in Romans 13. This means, as it stands today, a Christian cannot avoid some sort of reprimanding from God if they choose to vote for the Democratic platform. I don’t know what that reprimanding will look like – it depends on your knowledge. But one will come nonetheless, and I don’t wish to see that happen to any people who say they follow after Christ.

Lastly, there are some people I have met that I truly believe love the Lord, they are just off on this and did vote for the Democratic platform. My aim wasn’t to offend them; although, if that is a by-product, my loyalty is to Christ and to no humans feelings. I encourage you to dwell on what has been said and repent from your past decisions.

Thanks,
CJ Goff

More Examples Regarding Triaging Moral Principles:

Full disclosure: while I wrote the content of the above article, the following was derived via ChatGPT. I pasted the contents of my article and asked “Based on the argument in the article, give some more practical examples of how to triage Biblical moral principles when casting a vote.” Needless to say I liked what it gave and believe it to be a further help in the event anything I said wasn’t clear):

1. Prioritizing the Protection of Life Over Other Moral Issues

Scenario: You’re deciding between two candidates—one supports policies that uphold the sanctity of life (e.g., pro-life stance) but has policies on the economy or immigration that may not align perfectly with your preferences. The other candidate supports a pro-choice stance but has policies you prefer on other social justice issues, such as poverty or healthcare.

Triage: According to the biblical principle in Genesis 9:6, where God prioritizes the protection of life, you would prioritize the sanctity of life over secondary issues. Without life, other rights and liberties lose their meaning. Therefore, even if the other candidate has better policies in some areas, you would choose the one whose platform aligns more closely with God’s clear stance on protecting life.

2. Triaging Between Border Security and Compassion for Immigrants

Scenario: One political party emphasizes strict border control to protect citizens from potential harm, while another emphasizes leniency toward immigrants, potentially allowing security risks.

Triage: Based on Romans 13, where the government’s role is to protect its citizens and enforce the law, border security falls within the government’s primary purpose. However, as Christians, we are also called to show compassion to the stranger (Matthew 25:35). The key here is to balance these principles, recognizing that the government’s role is first to protect its people while individual Christians and the church can take active roles in offering compassion and help to immigrants in ways that don’t compromise security.

3. Triaging the Legalization of Sin Versus Social Welfare Programs

Scenario: You’re faced with a party that has strong welfare programs but promotes the legalization of behaviors that the Bible explicitly condemns, such as sexual immorality or substance abuse. The other party lacks strong social welfare policies but upholds a moral stance closer to biblical values in terms of behavior.

Triage: According to Galatians 5:19-21, Christians are to avoid endorsing any platform that promotes “the deeds of the flesh,” such as sexual immorality, drunkenness, and impurity. Even if the first party’s social welfare policies seem more compassionate, you would prioritize the moral law and avoid supporting any platform that promotes legal sinfulness, as it goes directly against God’s commands.

4. Triage in the Case of Judicial Appointments

Scenario: A candidate may not align perfectly with your values on every issue but promises to appoint federal and Supreme Court judges who are likely to uphold laws that protect life, religious freedom, and other core biblical values.

Triage: Given that these judicial appointments can impact legislation for decades, you would prioritize the candidate who will appoint judges that uphold principles aligning with God’s moral law, as these decisions can have long-lasting consequences on the moral and legal fabric of the nation.