Were the Puritans aligned in their eschatological views? Not quite. This article examines various Puritan theologies of eschatology that emerged between the 17th and 18th centuries, focusing on seven prominent Puritan writers and their unique perspectives. We’re going to look at Owen, Goodwin, the Mathers (father and son), Edwards, Turreting and Wittsius.
Each of these Puritan writers offers unique interpretations of eschatology that draw on specific passages from the Bible, particularly the book of Revelation. Their arguments, however, were not without their weaknesses. For example, premillennialists like Cotton Mather faced the challenge of reconciling their beliefs with passages that suggest a more spiritual interpretation of the end times, while postmillennialists such as Jonathan Edwards grappled with the problem of evil in a world where Christ’s reign was believed to be imminent.
Consider this article an opportunity to reflect on the diversity of positions within a group of Christians often thought of by some as homogenous; within the Puritan movement, there was substantial variety even as these men agreed on the central tenets of the gospel.
John Owen’s Progressive Revelation
John Owen (1616-1683) believed in the progressive revelation of God’s truth. In his work “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom” (John Owen, “The Advantage of Christ’s Kingdom,” in Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World (1651) in Works, 8:312-39.), Owen posited that the Second Coming of Christ would be preceded by the triumph of the gospel, which would occur through the gradual conversion of people around the world. This understanding of eschatology is rooted in the idea that God’s purpose and plan for humanity are revealed incrementally throughout history, culminating in the full realization of God’s kingdom on earth.
Owen’s eschatological perspective can be seen as a response to the pessimistic outlook of many of his contemporaries, who believed that the world was in a state of irreversible moral decline. By contrast, Owen emphasized the transformative power of the gospel and the potential for spiritual renewal in the hearts of individuals. He argued that as more people embraced the message of Christ, the world would gradually be transformed and prepared for Christ’s return.
One of the main strengths of John Owen’s progressive revelation is its emphasis on the unfolding nature of God’s plan for humanity. This view aligns with the broader biblical narrative, which demonstrates a pattern of God revealing His intentions and purposes over time through various covenants, prophetic messages, and ultimately, through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Owen’s approach to eschatology is rooted in the understanding that God’s truth is gradually disclosed, which is consistent with the structure of Scripture.
Despite the optimism of Owen’s eschatology, critics have noted that his reliance on the progressive revelation of God’s truth leaves room for ambiguity and uncertainty. For example, some have questioned how the triumph of the gospel can be measured and when it will be sufficient to usher in the Second Coming of Christ. Additionally, Owen’s interpretation can be challenged by biblical passages that suggest a more sudden and cataclysmic end to human history, such as the descriptions of the “day of the Lord” found in both the Old and New Testaments (see Isa 2:12; 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5, 30:3; Joel 1:15, 2:1,11,31; 3:14; Amos 5:18,20; Oba 15; Zeph 1:7,14; Zech 14:1; Mal 4:5; Acts 2:20; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 6:17; 16:14).
Thomas Goodwin’s Premillennialism
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) focused on the millennial reign of Christ. He argued for a literal interpretation of the 1,000-year reign described in Revelation 20:1-6, positing a physical resurrection of some saints and a spiritual reign of Christ as a precursor to the millennium and then Christ’s physical return and the final judgment (Works, 1:521). In The World to Come (1655), he detailed his arguments in favor of this interpretation, which is commonly known as premillennialism.
Goodwin’s understanding of the millennium is rooted in a belief in the literal fulfillment of biblical prophecy, particularly the visions described in the book of Revelation. He contended that the 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth was a crucial component of God’s plan for humanity, during which time believers would enjoy a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity (Goodwin, 1672). By adhering closely to the text, Goodwin’s view provides a straightforward understanding of the end times, which can be appealing to those who seek a concrete and unambiguous eschatological timeline (Goodwin 1672). Goodwin’s eschatology emphasized the future vindication of the faithful and the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.
However, critics of Goodwin’s premillennialism have noted that his interpretation relies on a mostly literal reading of Revelation, which is a highly symbolic and apocalyptic text. Although Goodwin acknowledged that many things in Revelation were symbolic of events, places, or people in church history, his was a historicist reading that leaned heavily literal. Some argue that the 1,000-year reign should be understood metaphorically, representing a spiritual reality rather than a physical one. By interpreting the 1,000-year reign in a strictly literal sense, Goodwin’s view may struggle to account for the broader context and purpose of the book of Revelation, which is intended to convey spiritual truths through symbolic imagery. Additionally, critics argue that Goodwin’s interpretation overlooks other passages in Scripture that suggest a more spiritual or metaphorical understanding of the end times.
Increase Mather’s Postmillenialism
Increase Mather (1639-1723) was known for his postmillennialist beliefs. He argued that the millennial reign of Christ would be a spiritual reign characterized by the conversion of the Jews and the triumph of the gospel. In The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation (Mather, 1669), he detailed his interpretation of the end times and the significance of the Jewish people in the unfolding of God’s eschatological plan.
Read More

The report of the statistician was received. The total membership of 33,520 persons at the end of 2023 consisted of 599 ministers, 24,645 communicant members, and 8,276 baptized children (non-communicants). This represents an increase of 897 persons (2.75 percent) from 2022’s adjusted total of 32,623 members.

Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Rev. John Fesko (RTS, Jackson, MS) and Rev. David Graves were nominated. Mr. Fesko was elected moderator.
Thursday, June 20, 2024
Mr. Hank Belfield, Stated Clerk, presented the report of the stated clerk. Mr. Belfield reported preparations of the 2025 edition of the Book of Church Order (BCO), set to be printed at the beginning of the new year. One amendment to the BCO was approved by a majority of the presbyteries since the last Assembly, and will be in effect in 2025: a change in Book of Discipline III, 2, so that the words “unavoidable impediments” will be replaced with the word “circumstances.”
The report of the statistician was received. The total membership of 33,520 persons at the end of 2023 consisted of 599 ministers, 24,645 communicant members, and 8,276 baptized children (non-communicants). This represents an increase of 897 persons (2.75 percent) from 2022’s adjusted total of 32,623 members.
Mr. A. Craig Troxel presented the committee’s proposed changes to the Recommended Curriculum for Ministerial Preparation in the OPC, a non-constitutional section of the BCO. The Assembly approved the advisory committee’s motion that the proposed revisions be returned to the CCE so that it can seek input from the presbyteries and their candidates and credentials committees, which was agreeable to the CCE.
The report of the Committee on Home Missions and Church Extension. Rev. Jeremiah Montgomery (general secretary of the committee) noted that CHMCE is the oldest committee still standing in the OPC, born at the first General Assembly on June 12, 1936. Almost one in ten congregations meeting each Lord’s Day is a mission work. The committee has set aside funding to support up to thirty-eight new and continuing mission works, fourteen RHMs, four church planting interns, and four special evangelistic projects.
Friday, June 21, 2024
The Committee on Foreign Missions presented its report. Rev. John Van Meerbeke (Living Hope OPC, Gettysburg, PA), president of the CFM, introduced the work of the committee. General secretary Rev. Douglas Clawson exhorted the Assembly regarding the vital, life-and-death, nature of our evangelistic work in the world. He passionately encouraged the members of the Assembly to answer the call of foreign missions as many fields are understaffed. There has not been a new evangelist sent to the field in the past year.
A missionary to Asia addressed the body, explaining his work training and examining candidates for ministry, teaching in a seminary, creating and translating online resources, and church planting. The church in Asia has seen a huge increase in church officers and licentiates.
Rev. Mark Richline (missionary to Uruguay) presented on his work with the Paysons in Montevideo, Mercedes, Maldonado, Ciudad de La Costa, Las Piedras, and the new Salvos Por Gracia mission. In the many ministries of the churches, he noted that ruling elder leadership has increased reflecting growth in the congregations. There is a need for more Uruguayan pastors.
The report of the Committee on Appeals and Complaints. There is one judicial appeal and nine complaints on appeal presented to this Assembly. The Assembly took up the one judicial appeal. In summary form: this involves an appeal of the judicial decisions of a session related to holding a trial in absentia and finding a member guilty of rebellion against the civil government and violence against government personnel, which verdict was upheld on appeal to the presbytery.
Saturday, June 22, 2024
The advisory committee assisted the Assembly by breaking up the appeal into four distinct specifications of error alleged against the session. Two specifications of error were denied and one was sustained. The Assembly referred the matter back to the advisory committee for its advice regarding what action to take with regard to the appeal as a whole.
Complaint 1. This is an appeal of a complaint by a session against the action of its presbytery in receiving and debating a report from its visitation committee and then using that report as grounds to appoint a committee seeking outside professional help to investigate allegations of misconduct by a session. The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Complaint 2. involving the same parties as Complaint 1. Complaint 2 is an appeal of a complaint of the session against the action of its presbytery in adopting a recommendation to appoint a committee seeking help from a professional, non-ecclesiastical, third party—thus surrendering its jurisdictional power of inquiry—in order to properly investigate allegations of misconduct by the session. The advisory committee recommended: “That General Assembly deny Complaint 2 on appeal. There was a minority report of the advisory committee recommending that the Assembly sustain the complaint. The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Monday, June 24, 2024
Overture 1 is a request for the General Assembly to amend the name of the Presbytery of New Jersey to the Presbytery of New Jersey and Puerto Rico effective September 28, 2024. The overture was approved by the Assembly.
Overture 2 is a request from a presbytery for the General Assembly’s advice regarding when and if those with serious sin and/or criminal history might be considered to serve in ordained office in the church. This includes such grievous sins as murder, sexual assault, and offenses requiring a man to register as a sex offender. The advisory committee made two recommendations. The first was: “That the General Assembly adopt the following statement: ‘In light of the transformative and renewing power of the gospel (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9–11, Ephesians 2:1–10, Titus 3:3–7), and in consideration of the biblical examples of Moses, David, and the Apostle Paul, we affirm that those with a criminal past can serve faithfully in ordained office in Christ’s church. However, there are some crimes and some contexts in which ordination should not be pursued, due to the scandalous nature of some sins, and the necessity for ordained officers to be exemplary in character, above reproach, and well thought of even by unbelievers. This decision must ultimately be left to the wisdom of local sessions and/or presbyteries, who ought to ask the Lord of the harvest to provide men fitting to rule His church.’”
The advisory committee made a second recommendation, amended by the body, and in summary form: To elect a study committee of three ministers and two ruling elders appointed by the Moderator to study the matter, to offer recommendations to the presbytery, and to report back to the 91st General Assembly.
Complaint 3. It involves the same parties as Complaints 1 and 2. In brief it is an appeal of a complaint by a session against the action of its presbytery for entering into a specific contract with a specific outside organization through its committee acting effectively as a commission. The Assembly sustained Complaint 3.
The Assembly adopted the following amends for Complaint 3, in summary: “That the presbytery acknowledge and record in its minutes its error in contracting with the outside organization to investigate and communicate this action to the session filing the complaint. That the presbytery refrain from using in any way the executive summary and recommendations generated by the outside organization (in fulfillment of the presbytery’s contract) in relation to the allegations concerning the members of the session and take all appropriate steps to restore the good name of the members of the session.”
Complaint 6. Involves the same parties as Complaints 1-3. In Complaint 6 the session charges its presbytery with error in failing to dismiss charges against the session’s pastor which were filed more than two years after commission of the alleged offense, despite wholly inadequate evidence of “unavoidable impediments” to earlier filing of said charges (Book of Discipline III, 2). In other words, at the heart of this complaint is the two-year limit on filing charges. The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Complaint 4. This is an appeal of a complaint by a member against his session regarding its position paper entitled “Can a Woman Teach a Mixed Sunday School Class?” that was sent to the congregation. This study paper set forth the session’s view on women, as part of the general office of believer, being biblically permitted to teach a mixed class of adult men and women in settings outside of divine worship (like Sunday School and other Christian educational opportunities). The paper sees prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 relating to authoritative office. The Assembly sustained Complaint 4.
The following amends were approved for Complaint 4: “1. That the session retract this position paper. 2. That the session commit to allowing only men to teach mixed adult Bible studies or Sunday School classes that involve teaching Scripture. 3. That the session notify the congregation of the above actions.”
Complaint 5. This is an appeal of a complaint by a member against the actions of his session relating to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. The member charges the session with error “for improperly initiating judicial proceedings against [him], carrying out the proceedings in a misleading manner, violating decorum due in judicial proceedings, and … failing to follow the rules of the Book of Church Order,” as well as “piercing his headship as a husband,” and breaching his confidentiality. The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Tuesday, June 25, 2024
Complaint 7. This is an appeal of a complaint by two members against the action of their session in adopting the position that it “should not admit into membership any who are unwilling to give the sign of covenant baptism to their children.” The complaint focuses on the categorical refusal to admit such rather than the right, in specific cases and for compound reasons, to refuse membership to those unwilling to present their children for baptism, which the complainants affirm. The complaint alleges that the session’s position is unbiblical, unconstitutional, and unwise.
The Committee on Appeals and Complaints noted: “A version of this question came before the Thirty-second General Assembly: Does the Constitution of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church permit church sessions to receive into communicant membership those who refuse to present their children for baptism? The Thirty-third General Assembly declared that the admission to membership of those who cannot in good conscience present their children for baptism is a matter for judgment by sessions. All things else being equal, a session may determine to receive or refuse into membership those who cannot in good conscience present their children for baptism. The position of the Thirty-third General Assembly has become something of a precedent in the OPC, though it should be noted that the Ninetieth General Assembly, as the highest judicatory of the OPC, is not bound by that precedent.” The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Complaint 9. This complaint by a former OPC minister, now a member, charges his presbytery with error in its decision to consider divesting him of office without censure. The complaint does not concern the presbytery’s decision to divest but its decision to contemplate divestiture. The motion to consider divestiture came as a recommendation of the presbytery’s shepherding committee, on the grounds that the minister appeared to lack certain gifts requisite of a minister of the gospel. The Assembly denied the Complaint.
Complaint 8. This is an appeal of a complaint, originally filed by an elder on sabbatical, against the action of his session in approving to ask a ruling elder emeritus to resume voting in light of Form of Government XXVI, 7, which complaint was upheld on appeal to the presbytery. The session now complains against the presbytery for sustaining the complaint. The advisory committee recommended that the complaint be sustained on the following grounds: “‘Performing, on occasion, the functions of that office’” Form of Government XXVI, 7 does not have in view a retired elder being returned to service on the session, by the session, as a voting member, unless by way of congregational vote (FG XXV, 2) and installation (FG XXV, 7). There were no ‘extraordinary circumstances’ (FG XXV, 1) that would have prevented the congregation from re-electing their emeritized elder and the session properly installing him.  The Assembly sustained the Complaint.
The Special Committee to Help Equip Officers to Protect the Flock next presented its report to the Assembly. The committee assembled two handbooks in its mandate—“Protecting the Flock against Sexual Predation” and “Strategies for the Protection of the Flock against Domestic Violence”—as well as a sample child protection policy, a short guide to preparing to bring a charge in the OPC, a recommended safety checklist for sessions, as well as a table of citations from the Westminster Standards relevant to this subject. With respect to the committee’s report, including the resources it produced, the Assembly approved the committee’s recommendation to communicate the report to the churches for study and edification.
This report was written by ruling elder Josh Downs, Redemption Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Gainesville, FL.
Source
Related Posts:

As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.

[An edited excerpt from Political Issues Made Easy (Victorious Hope Publishing)]
America is a republic, not a democracy. Rather than being a demo­cracy run directly by the people, we are a republic in which we elect our officials and empower them to make decisions on our behalf. Every adult citizen of the United States (unless he is a felon) has the right to vote. And as Christians our worldview obligates us to vote so that we might exercise a righteous influence on the governance of the nation.
But now the rub. Though Christians are well-represented in America, two problems reduce our influence: (1) we do not represent a majority of the population, and (2) we are not in agreement among ourselves regarding political matters.
As a consequence of our present circumstances, we have few really good candidates from which to choose for our leaders. What are we to do? How shall we operate in such a mixed political environment? I would like to offer direction for what we as Christian citizens should do. As I begin I will first consider:
Our Current Dilemma
Because there are so few candidates operating on strongly-held biblical principles, and because more often than not those few good ones have little chance of winning a general election, we find ourselves facing a dilemma. The voting quandary we face is known as “the lesser of evils.” That is, if we as voters are in a political election involving several candi­dates and we realize that the best candidate cannot win, what are we to do? We face the prospect of either voting for our preferred candidate, knowing that he will lose, or voting for an alternative, more viable but less acceptable candidate with the hope that he will defeat the other even lesser qualified candidate. In this case the alternative candidate becomes the “lesser of evils” remaining among those who have a good chance of being elected.
Many devout Christians even urge us not to consider voting for the lesser of evils. For instance, a website called “Defending. Contending” states: “my current position is that true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.”1 Peter Diezel puts it more forcefully: “I just can’t get myself to believe that it is good to vote for evil. The last I heard, the lesser of two evils is still evil.”2
These are strong words representing vigorous evangelical challenges to Chris­tians considering voting for a candidate lacking the full panoply of con­ser­vative convictions. Yet we certainly must bring our firmly-held Christian worldview to bear upon the political order. What are we to think of these challenges? How are we to respond to the challenge of the lesser of evils?
I believe that though these comments are well-intended, and though they have a surface plausibility, they ultimately fail as a proper Christian response to our predicament. Let me explain from a conservative-political and a Bible-based Christian perspective why I would say this, by noting:
Our Christian Response
In allowing the lesser-of-evils approach to voting from a Christian perspective, I would have us first note the principles involved, then consider their theological and biblical justifications. I present the quest­ion of principles first to introduce the argument; then I will show why I believe we can endorse it from within a Christian worldview.
The Question of Principle
We need carefully to reflect on the question of principle itself, which I will do under several headings.
First, distinguishing our principles. When we are engaging in politics we must be careful not to place our political actions (e.g., voting) on the same level as our doctrinal commitments (i.e., faith in Scripture). We must be careful not to develop a messianic political outlook. That is, we should not believe that if we can only elect the right candidate he will save our nation.
This problem of viewing political principles as if they are on the same level as doctrinal convictions is quite widespread. For instance, consider the “Defending Contending” website cited above. Notice how the writer (“Pilgrim”) sets up the debate: “true Christians should not have to vote if they first have to sit down and estimate which candidate is the lesser of two evils.” This writer is classifying “true” Christians by their voting rather than by their doctrinal commitments and personal lifestyle. This type of thinking apparently believes that “by their votes you shall know them.”
Our doctrinal convictions differ from our political actions in that they are immune from revision. Doctrinal convictions are rooted in the com­plete and permanent revelation of God in Scripture. Of course, our political positions should be rooted in our understanding of Scripture so that they are relatively secure commitments. But our political actions are not drawn directly from the Bible, and they are caught up in a system built on the necessity of compromise. We do not vote for our doctrinal convictions. Political actions are not on the same level as doctrinal convictions. They also invariably involve a commitment to fallen men and their political promises.
Evangelical Christian theologian J. I. Packer has wisely observed:
“Political compromise, the basic maneuver [of politics], is quite a different thing from the sacrificing of principles. Whatever may be true in the field of ethics, compromise in politics means not the abandon­ment of principle, but realistic readiness to settle for what one thinks to be less than ideal when it is all that one can get at the moment. The principle that compromise expresses is that half a loaf is better than no bread.”3
Second, establishing our principles. Those Christians who argue that we must vote for the “right” candidate because of our principles overlook an important issue: the problem of competing principles. What do I mean?
Let us take as one example a commitment to “constitutional govern­ment.” Usually conservative Christians desire a candidate who will oper­ate on constitutional principle. Now suppose three candidates are running for a particular office. Candidate A is promoting a platform based on strong constitutional commitments. Candidate B has some strong positions but is weak in other areas. Candidate C has little interest in maintaining constitutional policies and is promoting a platform clearly antithetical to the Constitution. But now suppose (as is often the case) that Candidate A has dismal poll numbers that indicate a virtually certain landslide loss.
The strongly-committed Constitutionalist Christian now faces a dilemma. He loves Candidate A’s platform, but recognizes that he almost certainly will go down to defeat. He knows that if he votes for Candidate A, then he is ultimately helping Candidate C by drawing off pro-Consti­tutio­nal voters. Consequently, he decides to vote for semi-Constitutional Candidate B over anti-Constitutional Candidate C. By this action he is act­ing in a lesser-of-evils manner. But is he thereby acting in an unprincipled manner? No! Indeed, it is quite the opposite. Let me explain.
Since the Christian voting for the lesser of evils has strongly-held pro-Constitution principles, his basic political commitment is to defend and promote constitutional government. Therefore, in light of the very real circumstances he is facing, he is acting on virtually the same principle as the Christian who would only vote for Candidate A. That is, he is voting to support the Constitution by recognizing that if Candidate C were elected he would radically undermine it. He is voting therefore to limit the damage done to our Constitutional form of government. Therefore, by voting for Candidate B his principles regarding Constitutional govern­ment have led him to defend the Constitution as best he can in the current circumstances by opposing the greater, more dangerous enemy of the Constitution. Had he voted for Candidate A (who was certain to lose), then Candidate C would effectively be gaining a vote which would allow him to gain more anti-Constitutional influence in the long run.
By voting for the lesser of evils, the Christian is operating in terms of principled realism. The other Christian who will only vote for the “pure” candidate is voting in terms of idealism. The principled realist engages in a stop-loss voting with a long-term hope for the day when more greatly committed Constitutionalists will be able to win an election. Voting for a sure loss is like saying: “Be warmed and filled.” Your heart (i.e., prin­ciple) is right but your actions (i.e., voting) are unhelpful (even harmful).
Let me provide a helpful illustration of how principled realism (lesser of evils voting) can lead to a better outcome than idealism, while attempting to hold the line. Let us say that two bills are presented in the House of Represen­tatives regarding abortion. Both of these bills are being offered in our current legal climate which allows abortion-on-demand (abortion for any and all reasons) throughout the nation. Bill A takes a strong pro-life position by making all abortions illegal. Bill B takes a largely pro-life position by declaring most abortions illegal except in the case of the potential death of the mother or rape or incest.
Now suppose that a straw vote has clearly shown that the strongly pro-life Bill A would go down to a resounding defeat, but that the largely pro-life Bill B could win the House vote. For which bill should the Christian Congressman vote? He wants to stop abortion. But if he votes for Bill A which is destined to defeat, abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land. If, however, he votes for Bill B then abortions will be largely curtailed. Tragically, if he stands on his idealism and refuses to vote for the lesser bill, he will have consigned tens of thousands of pre-born babies to death. On principle.
Surely as Christians we should strive to do what we morally can to resist evil. In fact, this should be one of the basic principles of Christian social concern. But consider our a position today: we usually have voting choices that are imperfect, but nevertheless have the opportunity to vote against the “greater evil.” Since the very best candidate often has no chance of winning, should we not vote in a way that effectively opposes the greater evil? Is this not a good principle — in light of our circum­stances? Why let the greater evil have the victory because we approach politics as an all-or-nothing proposition?
Third, evaluating our principles. We are considering political issues in this book, and are especially focusing on voting as an important political act that Christians should pursue. As believers we often find ourselves and our principles under assault. One of our principles should be to strive to protect our other principles as best we can against the majority opposi­tion. I am arguing that, given our circumstances, we sometimes have to act as principled realists and vote for the lesser of evils in defending our principles for the long haul. Just as freedoms may be lost incrementally, they may also be re-established incrementally.
Unfortunately, many idealistic Christians will reject any call to voting for the lesser of evils. Sometimes they will ask: “As a Christian why would you vote for the lesser of evils?” The answer, of course is: “Because I want less evil.”
Some of these will indignantly rebuke principled-realist Christians by complaining that they should never vote for the lesser of evils. But when considered from a Christian perspective, this position is self-refuting and borders on a messianic conception of politics. After all, Christians should be aware that unless Christ is on the ballot every vote is for the lesser of evils. Does not Jesus say: “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18b). In fact, he can even speak to his followers as children of the “heavenly Father” and yet call them “evil”: “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your hea­venly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13).
In opposing the lesser of evils the Christian could not even vote for the Apostle Paul, for he says of himself: “I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. . . . For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. . . . I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Rom. 7:14, 19, 21). He even cites the Old Testament’s universal declaration: “There is none righteous, not even one” (Rom. 3:10).
Because of these realities no conservative Christian can avoid voting for the lesser of evils. A vote for the Apostle Paul would be — on Paul’s own admission — a lesser of evils! No candidate in this fallen world is perfect; all candidates have some flaws, some “evil.” In such a world we cannot escape lesser-of-evils voting.
Taking this a step further, I would argue that an attempt to vote for a “perfect” candidate by voting third-party in national presidential elec­tions is unrealistic, risky, and self-defeating. It is unrealistic because excellent third party candidates fare miserably and embarrassingly in presidential elections. They have absolutely no chance of winning. And as a consequence they project the appearance of an ineffectual, back-water Christianity with little or no clout.
This can be demonstrated statistically. In the 2000 election Patrick Buchanan of the Reform Party (deemed by many Christians as an excellent candidate) garnered only 448,895 votes out of 105,405,100 cast. This translates to 0.42 % of all votes. Howard Phillips, a strong Christian representing the biblically-faithful Constitution Party received only 98,020 votes, for 0.09% of the vote. In the 2004 election the Constitution Party candidate received only 144,499 votes, for 0.12% of all votes. In 2008 the Constitution Party garnered only 199,880 votes or 0.15% of the total.
Tragically, Hitler won Germany on a divided vote. “Hitler became Germany’s chancellor (prime minister) without ever having received more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the elections he had entered.”4 This shows the risky nature of third party candidacies. Split votes can often produce horrible results. Six million Jews paid with their lives on the basis of a split vote — as ultimately did over 40 million who died in the European theater of World War 2.
Fourth, explaining our principles. The principled realist recognizes the nature of our American political system: it is virtually impossible statistically for a third-party candidate to win. Generally, they only cause one of the two major party candidates to lose, such as Ross Perot in 1992. In 1992 George H. W. Bush was projected to win as much as 55% of the vote, coming off high approval ratings and a rather week unknown governor from Arkansas. But with Perot’s entry into the race and his securing of 18.91% of the vote, Bill Clinton won with only 43.01% of the national vote. Clinton never was elected by a majority vote in either of his two presidential wins.
Some challenge the lesser-of-evils approach by arguing that it is simply a choice of fast poison (the bad candidate) versus slow poison (the tolerable candidate). They ask: “Why prefer slow poison over fast poison?” I would ask: Which would you prefer to accidentally ingest if you were thirty minutes from a hospital? In politics, if we have to vote for “slow poison,” we can at least buy some time to work on a “cure.” After all, the worst candidate often wins when conservative votes are drawn away to dream candidates. By drawing votes away from a tolerable but electable candidate you are actually taking fast-acting poison by default.
Others ask: “Why do we keep voting the same way (for centrist candidate) but expect different results (Christian- principled leaders)?” This question is a two-edged sword for it can be turned on the Christian idealist: “Why do some Christians keep voting for third party candidates and watching their candidate be demolished (receiving less than 1% of the vote), while allowing their votes effectively to be siphoned off to the more liberal candidate?” Beating our head against the wall in small numbers is not a good game plan.
But now we must consider:
The Question of Theology
As Christians living in God’s world, we must understand that we are here in the world for the long run. And as we come to grips with this it will be encouraging to recognize an important method of God’s dealings with man: gradualism, or incrementalism. That is, God generally works gradually over time to accomplish his purpose. We must therefore be willing to labor for our Christian influence in politics over time, not expecting all to be accomplished over night.
This theological principle should buttress our hope for the future. It allows us to seek smaller, stop-loss victories now with a goal to winning larger ones as history unfolds. Thus, this theological principle shows the practical wisdom in accepting compromise in our political actions (not compromise of our principles themselves) in the present time with a view to gaining influence in the long run. Rather than approaching politics as an all-or-nothing venture, we must recognize the significance of incre­mental victory over time.
In Scripture we find the principle of gradualism embodied in the actions of God in history. God works by slow providence over time by means of a “here a little; there a little” gradualism (Isa. 28:10). Indeed, he encourages his people by rhetorically asking: “who has despised the day of small things?” (Zech. 4:10).
For instance, we see divine gradualism at work in various theological issues in the Bible.
Redemption. God promised redemption just after the entry of sin into the human race in Eden (Gen. 3:15). Yet its accomplishment follows thousands of years after Adam when Christ comes (Gal. 4:4–5; cp. Eph. 1:10).
Revelation. God did not give us his entire, written revelation all at once. Rather he gradually unfolded his Word to men over a period of some 1,500 years, from Moses’s writings (1450 BC) until the last of the New Testament was written in the first century (Heb. 1:1–2a; cp. 1 Pet. 1:10–12).
Sanctification. Even in God’s gracious salvation he works gradually in our lives. Though our justification brings salvation as a once-for-all act (Rom. 4:2–3; 5:1), God works sanctification within us by an ongoing process throughout our lives (1 Pet. 2:2; cp. Phil. 2:12-13).
It is difficult for us to be patient in a day of freeze-dried this and instant-that where scientists can measure actions in nanoseconds. But God teaches us in his Word to work patiently for the long run. We should not be dismayed if our political activities do not produce instant fruit. Sometimes we must expect less than we would hope for — by voting for the lesser evil.
But now how does this all square with:
The Question of Scripture
I believe in a Christian worldview rooted in Scripture. But how can we encourage Christians to compromise in their voting while maintaining their worldview? The question of compromise is particularly significant for Christians who are uncompromisingly com­mitted to Scripture. So then, does the question of compromise under­mine all the practical arguments brought up by Christian idealists?
This is an important matter to consider — especially in that it frequently arises in Christian political discussions. Does the Bible have anything to say regarding the question of compromise? Actually it does. It allows realistic, principled compromise. Consider the following exam­ples.
Jesus’ practice. Christ specifically compromised on a matter so as not to cause offense. As the Son of God he was not required to pay the two-drachma tax. Nevertheless we read in Matthew:
“When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, ‘Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, ‘What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?’ When Peter said, ‘From strangers,’ Jesus said to him, ‘Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.’” (Matt. 17:24–27)
He could have affirmed his immunity from paying the tax, which would have underscored his claim to his deity. But here he “compromised” on that particular issue and paid the tax — so as not to cause offense.
In fact, consider the following situation. Rome was a pagan nation dominating Israel, and each legion carried an idolatrous Standard (Sig­nums) for their identification. The Jewish historian Josephus was an eyewitness to the destruction the Jewish temple in AD 70. He reported that the Romans “carried their standards into the temple court and, setting them up opposite the eastern gate, there sacrificed to them, and with rousing acclamations hailed Titus as imperator” (Wars 6:6:1). The church father Tertullian (AD 160–220) writes: “The camp religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a setting the standards above all gods” (Apology 16).
Nevertheless, though Jesus interacted with Roman soldiers he never encouraged them to leave the army (Matt. 8:5–13).5 Neither did John the Baptist when directly asked by soldiers “what shall we do?” (Luke 3:14).
Jesus employs an illustration in his parabolic teaching that recognizes that we must think in terms of practical solutions and be willing to compromise as we look to larger goals.6 He taught twin parables on disci­pleship that employed strategic compromise for securing our ulti­mate goals.
“For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’7
“Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thou­sand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thou­sand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.” (Luke 14:28–31)
In the second parable, the king here planning for battle surely has a desire for victory. Yet as he looks realistically at his prospects he realizes the potential for loss. Consequently, he begins working on a compromise to settle the differences with the opposing king.
Likewise, today we do not compromise our conservative principles regarding proper constitutional government. But we sometimes have to alter our action (our vote) for the lesser of evils with a view to maintaining as many constitutional policies and practices as we can.
Our Long-term Strategy
As I have been pointing out, we are in a socio-political struggle for the long run. Therefore, I have been urging that we act accordingly. Like it or not, in politics we cannot expect overnight success through one particular election or by means of a “perfect” candidate. To continually vote for the “perfect” candidate when we know he is going to lose does not help us build for the future, for by that we are ceding more victories to the overt liberals. Liberalism is messy. When its goo gets all over the place, it is very difficult to clean up the mess.
Why should we continually butt our heads against the wall each election cycle? It performs no useful service except for providing a steady drumbeat leading Christians in the march away from long-term influence. But what about those with less grandiose designs who hold that voting for the perfect Christian candidate will at least make “a statement”? More often than not they make the wrong statement: “Let’s lose this one for Jesus.” Their dismal poll numbers can make a statement, but not a very loud one. Sadly, conservative and moderate candidates can split the vote against the dangerous liberal candidate.
Recognizing the necessity of strategic compromise and incremental advance we should be willing to seek smaller political victories in the meantime. And rather than hoping against hope for the perfect presi­dential candidate to be elected, we will have to accept a tolerable candidate who functions like a finger in the dike effectively buying us more time — and keep us from throwing good money and our political hopes into a losing cause. Change tends to be generational rather than overnight.
We should not expect to change the nation in one fell swoop. Rather we should engage the more manageable work of changing a political party from within. Transforming a political party that is relatively close to several of our positions is easier than trying to change an entire nation that is literally “all over the map.” Like it or not, American government is effectively a two-party system.
If worse comes to worse, we may eventually need to create a new political party from within the established lesser-of-evils party. But this would need to start out on a more local level and build toward higher offices and larger goals in the long run. For instance, today many Chris­tians tend to put too much hope in the presidential election, hoping for the big prize. Turnouts in mid-term elections are generally around 20% small than in presidential elections. We should begin by working locally in small realms rather than trying to leap to the presidency.
Former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill coined the phrase: “all politics is local.” By that he meant that people tend to vote on matters of local interest and significance. This requires that politicians must recog­nize the needs of their constituencies. And since this is generally true, it also underscores the significance of learning about local needs by working in lower offices — as training for higher office.
Our nation used to be more acclimated to localism in its early days. Of course, slow transportation and limited communication had much to do with that. Today Christians need to take a greater (not sole) interest in local elections, such as mayoral, city and county councils, county administrators, sheriffs, and so forth. Once we have built success and gained experience in these more local areas, we can move on to state legislatures and governorships. And then to congressional and senatorial office, and on to the presidency. Secure foundations must be laid before a gold dome can be placed on the top.
Conclusion
As conservative, evangelical Christians we are committed to principle at the very core of our being. The doctrinal convictions we hold regarding our holy faith serve as the very foundation for our lives — they are our most basic principles. And as servants of Christ we love and seek the right, just, and good. Consequently, it is difficult for us to compromise since our very lives are rooted in God-given principles.
We do not, of course, compromise our principles themselves. That would make us what we are not. But sometimes we must compromise our methods. In promoting Christian politics in a mixed and antagonistic environment such as we have in America, we must recognize the opposition we face. We must accept as a political principle that we will have to oppose the greater evil by sometimes voting for the lesser good.
In this chapter we have seen how our long term goal for victory must often involve a short term strategy which is painful but necessary. We must recognize the big picture and learn patience in seeking to bring it into proper focus. We saw how even theology and Scripture allow compromise in our methods in seeking the ultimate greater good. Voting the lesser of evils is necessary in a fallen world where all human action is tainted by evil.
Dr. Ken Gentry is a retired Presbyterian minister who is an emeritus teaching elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly (RPCGA).

1 “Pilgrim” on the “Defending Contending” website (June 6, 2009). http://
defendingcontending.com/2011/06/09/should-christians-vote-for-the-lesser-of- two-evils/
2 Peter Diezel, “Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils Is Evil.” “Word of His Grace” website (May 9, 2008). http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/evilisevil.htm
3 J. I. Packer, “How to Recognize a Christian Citizen,” Christianity Today Institute in Christianity Today, 29: 7 (April 19, 1985), 7.
4 “Hitler and Germany: 1927–35,” Macro-History and World Report website. http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch16.htm
5 By special privilege for Israel, Rome did not bring such images into Jerusalem.
6 The parables themselves are actually teaching the cost of discipleship, and ultimately not calling for compromise. But the illustrations he uses are from the practical world regarding acceptable actions. We are focusing on the real-world illustration rather than the spiritual-life implication of discipleship. As one com­men­­tator notes: “Jesus constructs these parables along parallel lines: a hypo­thetical, demanding enterprise + analysis of the adequacy of existing resources vis-á-vis the requisite resources for achieving a successful conclusion to the enterprise + outcome when available resources fall short.” Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 566.
7 The implied compromise is that the man desiring to build a tower may have to drop the building project because of the likely failure to finish the project. He obviously wanted the tower, but he saw failure looming over the project, so would surely dismiss it.

Related Posts:

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.