I don’t think he’s trying to fool us about what he believes, and I don’t think we’re fooling ourselves, either. The friends of freedom always have to build coalitions. Those coalitions always come with risks, some of them severe. But we take them knowingly because we understand this fallen world, and because we are not looking for a savior. We have one already, and it is he—not Elon Musk, not Stacey Abrams, not Donald Trump—who makes us free.

Elon Musk is not going to save you. He’s not your king, and he’s not your god, any more than Dr. Fauci or Klaus Schwab is. Elon is no more suited than them, by nature or by divine ordination, to decide for you upon the courses of action that will make your life meaningful and upright. He has no more authority to shoulder these sacred burdens on your behalf than those other pretenders. But unlike them, he doesn’t want to.
I could be wrong about this. I don’t know the man, and there is always much more to public figures than what they let on in interviews. But when he says that “free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy,” he is following a noble instinct, and I believe that instinct is sincere. “Generally I think we should be aiming for a positive society, and it should be okay to be humorous,” he told the editors of the Babylon Bee. That interaction helped touch off the chain of events that led to his acquisition of Twitter.
And tellingly, what his opponents most fear in him is exactly what I hope for: “Mr. Musk seems to seek…a kind of infinite license to say almost anything, anywhere,” writes Elizabeth Spiers in the New York Times. I am grateful to Ms. Spiers for putting the matter so plainly: yes, that is exactly what I want. I think Elon wants it too. To the extent he is willing and able to deliver it, he is the ally of patriotic Americans everywhere.
Some critics have tried lamely to catch Musk out in hypocrisy because he does not permit employees of Tesla to disparage the company. But that won’t wash—it’s a perfectly normal and unremarkable sort of contract, entered into freely by both parties. If I wanted to go around denouncing the Claremont Institute, I would have every right to do so, but not while continuing to draw a paycheck from them. And since the people raising this concern are the same people who don’t want Musk to be serious about his “free speech absolutism” to begin with, that whole line of argument is a bit disingenuous.
The bigger issue is that Musk has objectives in mind which many of his supporters either don’t share, or find vaguely sinister. He wants us all using wind and solar power, riding in driverless electric cars, delegating chores to in-house robots, and patching our brains into a digital system called Neuralink. If unrestrained by clarity and conviction about the human soul’s central place in creation, these projects have the potential to evolve into transhumanist nightmare fuel. Some wonder whether, in their eagerness to fix Twitter, conservatives have invited in exactly the sort of vampire they should be guarding most vigilantly against.
The Best Bad Option
But by and large, the Right is going into this partnership with open eyes. I don’t think this has yet been fully appreciated: American conservatives have learned to be admirably forthright with themselves and others about the tradeoffs they must make in dire circumstances. Those who had not already learned this skill got a crash course two elections ago. “Trump is worse than imperfect,” wrote Michael Anton in his landmark argument for voting red in 2016. Talk to most Trump voters and they’ll concede a great deal about his many character flaws—they just think the alternatives are worse.
Read More
Related Posts:

Satan’s false flag operation is fueling misgivings about Biblical teaching concerning gender differences, fatherhood and motherhood, roles in marriage and male leadership in the church. (The church’s government notably has as its head a man, the man Christ Jesus, who set it up, who shed his blood for sinners in love and appoints men to shepherd the flock he loves.) Satan’s operation is a deceitful emotional appeal that can be summarized by a short and familiar formula: “God is evil, isn’t he?” But the truth is the opposite.

Last week I noticed that Ryan Gosling was nominated for an Oscar for playing Ken alongside Margot Robbie’s Barbie in last summer’s hit by the same name. Robbie, incidentally, was not so nominated. I won’t watch the film, but I recall reading that the plot features a wayward Ken promoting patriarchy, and that Barbie—won’t this help us all sleep better—rescues the world from patriarchy. It is likely that I am not the only one to detect a total public relations failure when the man gets the trophy after all.
This in turn reminded me of something I read around the time the movie came out: that the Archbishop of York of the Church of England was also worried about patriarchy, and that its troubling existence makes some understandably uncomfortable with a certain prayer that begins with the words “Our Father.”[i]
And the bishop is hardly alone. Many professing Christians sound just like Barbie and the bishop, and tell me that the church has missed something—a two-thousand-year-old fifth column called patriarchy must be rooted out of Christianity for Christianity to survive in our enlightened age.[ii] Without pulling this invasive weed, they tell me, we are doomed.
What do we make of this assessment? Is this really a noxious weed? What is patriarchy?
What is True: Decades of Bad News Concerning Bad Men
In 2002 the Boston Globe published a series of stories revealing a pattern of criminal sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. The hypocrisy caused a crisis of confidence that spread in the church worldwide, and continues to the present day—the fathers were not what they claimed to be.
American evangelicalism has not fared much better. Vision Forum promised the restoration of the Christian family through “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy;” instead its president confessed to inappropriate sexual conduct. Mr. “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” left his wife and left the faith.  Leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention faced serious allegations. To our shame the church has often looked more like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein than Job or Joseph.
My own tribe—evangelical Presbyterianism—has its own cases of the same sordid substance. This is the hypocrisy of which Jesus said: “Woe to you!” This is also the way of sinful flesh; there is nothing new under the sun, and what has been will be. Sexual desire, apart from the controlling influence of the Holy Spirit, produces all manner of wicked fruit. The lust of the flesh is destructive and evil.
But some suggest that these failures are not fundamentally rooted in individual fallen human nature but rather social structures that unequally place men in positions of influence, leading to the imbalance and abuse of power. If we solve the imbalance, so the logic goes, we will eliminate the abuse. Utopia requires the elimination of patriarchy.
What is Patriarchy?
Patriarchy simply means father-rule. The word clearly indicates an apportioning of authority. It is an uncomplicated word, used by the church for millennia. Today’s use of the word, however, appears to be confused by two things: (i) people who use it to describe unbiblical schemes (we will call this not-patriarchy) or (ii) people who think patriarchy itself is actually bad.
About not-patriarchy: The promises of I Kissed Dating Goodbye or Vision Forum or Bill Gothard should never have appealed to Christians, ever. These schemes went beyond the Law of God, lacked Gospel basics, and understated dependence on the Holy Spirit. It is no surprise that adherents later kiss Christianity goodbye. All forms of legalistic, harsh, and sinful leadership are not fatherhood but delinquency. We need to learn to recognize and reject counterfeit patriarchy.[iii]
The second concern is the unequivocal rejection of the whole thing: Patriarchy is simply very bad. Countless journalists, opinion writers and professors, the bishop and Barbie (and a growing chorus of evangelical-egalitarian influencers) are in agreement: Very, very bad.
I hear this sentiment in the Presbyterian denominations in which I travel: “Beware patriarchy,” which then is inexplicably defined as “men being unkind to women.” This particular definition often makes its appearance during discussions of abuse or sexual sin; for some this is apparently indistinguishable from patriarchy. If we were playing Clue, it was patriarchy in the church that did it. Case closed.
The net effect? Listen up, everybody: Patriarchy is a big problem. Father-rule is bad. The father is bad.
The Dangers That Follow the Loss of Patriarchy
So why even try to rescue a sullied word? Doesn’t language change? I would submit that acquiescence to the popular equation patriarchy–is-evil will result in the loss of our nation, the Christian home, the church and the Gospel. How, you ask, could this little word be so important?
Read More
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.