Over the last few years, many articles and books have analyzed the current state of evangelicalism in the United States. (See note below for examples.) The reason for all of this attention to a historically profound world-wide movement in Christianity is not only the 81 percent of white evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, but the continued support these evangelicals have given him despite his lack of faith, his continual distortion of truth, and his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.

Commentators and people of all and no faiths wonder how evangelicals known for being so concerned about character can enthusiastically defend such a person who demonstrably lacks it. Many reasons have been given for this allegiance, such as Trump’s support for the anti-abortion movement, for promoting religious freedom, and for appointing conservative judges. These values were important to many Trump voters, but are they the whole story?

For instance, many white evangelicals have also been tremendously supportive of Trump’s harsh rhetoric and actions with respect to non-European immigrants. What causes evangelicals to dismiss biblical teachings about “welcoming the stranger” and the “foreigner”? Is it because of fear of “the other” and a concurrent loss of cultural dominance? Is it the unsettling feeling, as someone has said, that “we are no longer the home team”? Is Trump’s appeal to white nationalists overlapping with his appeal among white evangelicals?

Another reason people support Trump is his dismissal of science in combating climate change and the pandemic. Many evangelicals have been adamant in not getting vaccinated or wearing masks. But why have such behaviors seemed more Christian than loving one’s neighbors through good public health practices? Is this a further uncovering of an evangelical anti-intellectualism that Mark Noll addressed in his classic nineties book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind?

A Lost Identity

The result of this passionate support of Trump is that evangelicals have tragically lost their identity as people concerned about character and biblical principles. Former Republican governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, writes in his excellent new book, Faithful Presence: The Promise and the Peril of Faith in the Public Square, that “the term evangelical is more likely to be identified as a voting block than a description of someone who desires to share the good news of grace found in the Gospels.” Fellow Republican and evangelical commentator, David French, similarly questions whether the term evangelical carries any “true religious meaning any longer.”

In addition, many local churches (as well as parachurch groups) are fracturing because they include members with strong and conflicting political identities that have not been refined by either personal humility or a greater allegiance to biblical values. Pastors and other leaders are exhausted trying to withstand these competing political pressures in their churches and ministries.

One common response to this spiritual unsettledness is to decide one can’t talk about political or social issues in church. I sympathize with this pragmatic choice, but it can ultimately diminish our active witness in a decaying and darkening world. If we can’t talk about differences in our churches and Christian organizations, how can we talk meaningfully with those outside the household of faith?

An Evangelical Past and Future

I write these comments with great sadness as I have been an evangelical all of my life. Beginning with my home church when I was growing up, I have experienced an evangelicalism that takes the authority of the Bible seriously. I have fully embraced the words of John R. W. Stott that “God has not revealed his truth in such a way as to leave us free at our pleasure to believe or disbelieve it, to obey or disobey it.”

The evangelicalism I have experienced in many congregations with faithful pastors, has proclaimed and demonstrated the whole gospel (the evangel) to the whole person. It cared about worshipping God, spiritual formation of the soul, the life of the mind, social and racial justice, and the international mission of the church.

Fortunately, many evangelicals, churches, and institutions still embrace these values. Nineteen percent of white evangelicals and the strong majority of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native evangelicals did not vote for Trump even though they also care about pro-life and religious freedom issues.

So, is there a future for evangelicalism? Probably as a public identity, yes. As long as pollsters keep it alive, it will be hard to get rid of the terminology. Also, so many groups and churches have evangelical in their name or description, such as the National Association of Evangelicals and the Evangelical Free Church, that major changes are difficult to imagine (although Evangelicals for Social Action did recently change their name to Christians for Social Action).

We also simply don’t yet have a better terminology to describe what has been a vibrant subgroup within Christianity. Many prefer now to avoid the evangelical label and just say, “I’m a Christ-follower.” That term might help on an interpersonal level in avoiding the stigma of an evangelical political identity—but will it hinder us from embracing a spiritually coherent vision for a biblical evangelicalism that is a faithful witness of salt and light in the world?

New Approaches to Eternal Truths

The answer may lie with a developing evangelical “tribe” made up of those across church, denominational, and ministry lines who embrace a broader coalition of spiritual convictions to supplement the traditional pillars of evangelicalism: belief in the Bible, belief in salvation through Jesus Christ, and belief in the importance of evangelism. This growing informal coalition has at least the following elements.

1. The first is the tremendous interest in spiritual formation that is providing abundant resources and opportunities for pastors and lay leaders to pay attention to their souls and not just their beliefs. Organizations such as Renovaré, The Transforming Center, Leadership Transformations, Fuller Formation, and a host of spiritual direction programs, retreat centers, and books are leading the way to this deeper spirituality.
2. A second development is a renewed passion for loving God with our minds and speaking God’s truths in the public arena. Major evangelical organizations such as BioLogos, The Trinity Forum, The Veritas Forum, Christianity Today, The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, multiple study centers, and segments of Christian publishing seek to elevate thoughtful engagement with current world issues. It is striking now to read evangelical writers in The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. It is also encouraging to know of thousands of professors and graduate students in Christian and secular colleges and universities through ministries like InterVarsity Christian Fellowship who are living out their faith within and beyond their academic disciplines. Being a faithful presence in the world is a deep spiritual and professional calling that is gaining traction.
3. A third dynamic is the significant number of social justice ministries, such as Christians for Social Action, Sojourners, International Justice Mission, World Relief and many newer ministries. These agencies are articulating and practicing biblical values of compassion, mercy, and justice in our culture. They are engaged politically where necessary but also assist church congregations with resources and opportunities for involvement. Many local churches are leading the way in caring for the homeless, for unwed mothers, and for racial justice in their communities. There is also a greater spiritual and relational connection (especially with many younger evangelicals) among white and ethnic minority church leaders in this country and throughout the world. An international and multiethnic church is becoming a compelling vision and reality rather than something to fear. Social justice is being rediscovered as a biblical calling integral to being a faithful witness.
4. There is also a budding evangelical renaissance of the arts and the Christian imagination. This is happening through networks forged by groups and publications such as Christians in the Visual Arts (CIVA), Ekstasis Magazine from Christianity Today, The Edge of Faith Magazine, and many outstanding programs at evangelical colleges and seminaries. What is striking about this initiative is not only its appreciation of art as an expression of God’s creative activity, but how it is becoming an important resource in the areas of spiritual formation, social justice, and the life of the mind. Ever since the Enlightenment and its values of unmitigated reason and individualism, Christians have been lured into believing that our faith is fundamentally left-brained and transactional rather than also being transformative. The development and integration of a right-brained faithful imagination with a left-brained faith of belief is a powerful force of knowledge and creativity that is a bright light for evangelicals in the future.

If there is to be a resurgence of a vibrant evangelicalism, might it come from such a confluence of these spiritual formation, intellectual, justice, and arts initiatives? The traditional trilogy of Bible study, evangelism, and missions sometimes seems to be sadly depleted of energy or of being coopted by political allegiances. We can’t lose these priorities of the Gospel, but we need new and varied on-ramps to incorporate them into a holistic practice of Christian faith.

Streams of Living Water

Nearly twenty-five years ago, Richard Foster wrote a significant book called Streams of Living Water: Celebrating the Great Traditions of Christian Faith. Foster explores six spiritual traditions that have given shape to Christianity over the past two thousand years, including the Contemplative, Holiness, Charismatic, Social Justice, Evangelical, and Incarnational traditions.

Foster writes that these traditions all flow together with Jesus as the divine source. He notes both the strengths and limitations of each tradition functioning only by itself, suggesting that each stream can be enriched by receiving from the other streams.

But, as Foster notes, organizational and theological pride are like rocks that keep the streams from flowing freely together. It takes a true spirit of humility to welcome the value that each stream brings.

Maybe this is a time in history when the evangelical stream can be strengthened by receiving from the other streams and joining with them as a true expression of Christian unity.

The Great Commandments and the Great Commission

One shift in thinking that I believe might cultivate that spirit of humility is to more vigorously embrace Jesus’s teaching of the Great Commandments, to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind…[and] love your neighbor as yourself.” (See Deuteronomy 6:4-5, Matthew 22:35-40.)

The traditional evangelical mindset has often been focused more on the Great Commission: “Go and make disciples of all nations” (see Matthew 28:16-20) than on the Great Commandments. This discipling and missional impulse has been tremendously successful and is clearly foundational to our Christian calling. But perhaps it has been misappropriated in ways that have helped foster a worldly spirit of political triumphalism that is robbing us of our spiritual integrity.

Instead, we might focus more on a deeper love for God and neighbor that emanates from a place of humility, setting the stage for going into the world with all that Jesus taught us to obey, including the commandment to love one another. This would be a sharp contrast to being known for taking into the world a highly political and compromised faith.

An important part of recovering the true identity of evangelicalism is encouraging ministries that lead us in “paths of righteousness” and supporting pastors who courageously lead their congregations to think and act more biblically in the public arena. By collectively letting go of religious hubris and a longing for political power, we can better serve God and neighbor in ways that let the world “know we are Christians by our love.”

By God’s grace, that will be the future of evangelicalism.

Note: “What Is Evangelicalism?” by Bruce Hindmarsh, published in Christianity Today, provides an excellent summary of the evangelical movement. Another valuable contribution to the topic is the book Still Evangelical? Insiders Reconsider Political, Social, and Theological Meaning, edited by Mark Labberton. Still Evangelical? includes a rich diversity of perspectives from a number of writers, although Labberton’s comprehensive and carefully nuanced commentary in the seventeen-page introduction is in itself worth the price of the book.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is one of the most controversial issues today in not only the academic world but in our politics and personal conversations. Last fall, a presidential executive order banned CRT in diversity training in federal agencies. Just this past week, the state of Idaho cut off funding for the teaching of CRT at Boise State. At the same time, many other colleges and universities require CRT to be taught in various forums and classes.

So, the familiar battle lines are drawn. Conservatives see CRTas an un-American Marxist insurgency against our democracy while liberals see CRTas a way to better understand our racial tensions so we can improve our democracy. Which is it? Or is there a way to examine CRT that takes into account both its value and its weaknesses—and leads us back to God’s call to love one another?  

What is Critical Race Theory?

CRT is an application of Critical Theory developed in the Frankfurt School of social research nearly 100 years ago. Since then, Critical Theory has been used in a variety of disciplines such as law and history. In 1989, it was appropriated in the study of racism as Critical Race Theory.

CRT views our history and political judgments through a lens of race. It opens our eyes to how systemic racism from our country’s past affects the lives of people of color every day—from centuries of slavery, to the Homestead Act in 1862, to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, to Jim Crow laws in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. CRT helps us see that while we might not have had a personal part in systemic racism in our past, we can be aware of how such laws have had a ripple effect throughout generations.

What Is Valuable about Critical Race Theory?

1. Provides Valuable Research: A foundational value of CRT is its sympathetic research into the role of race in the laws and societal norms that invariably favor the majority culture. For instance, hundreds of studies show tremendous disparities between Whites and Blacks in health, education, hiring, income, criminal justice issues, and housing. Some might argue that these disparities are the result of more intact families, a stronger work ethic, or better money management skills among Whites. But suggesting that Whites are simply superior in these ways only furthers the assumptions that have led to these disparities over the centuries while ignoring the historical and present reasons for the inequalities. It also leads to a racist addiction to White Supremacy.
2. Authenticates the Experience of People of Color: A second value of CRT is that it gives people of color an objective understanding of what they experience. They do not have to depend on “politically correct” sensitivities of others to establish that they are in fact being underrepresented and under-resourced in so many dimensions of our society. Just last week, for instance, it was reported that Black farmers received only 0.1 percent of the money from the economic stimulus bill known as the CARES Act last year, while White farmers received 99 percent of the funds even though they didn’t own 99 percent of the farms either by size or number. Whether this was intentional or not is not known but the result is the same. Race evidently made a huge difference in the amount of money our government distributed to White farmers versus Black farmers.
3. Identifies Institutional as well as Individual Racism: CRT also shows us that racism is not just a matter of “a few bad apples,” but it has and continues to be systematized in many of our laws and organizational structures. We see in the current murder trials of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, for instance, how policing practices for Blacks are often different than for Whites. The efforts of so many Republican state legislatures to restrict or hamper voting among minorities (such as having fewer ballot boxes and voting locations in minority districts) is further evidence of institutional racism.

What Is Controversial about CRT?

1. Marxist Influences: The most politically charged accusations against CRT are those of guilt by association. Some claim CRT is Marxist and contrary to capitalism and democratic principles. Others see it as just an academic justification for the excesses of the Black Lives Matter movement. Still others decry it as lacking and even contradicting a Christian philosophical foundation. There is some truth to all of these concerns. The original Critical Theorists were indeed engaged with Marxism but not without critique. They understood that although the Marxist view of life as a struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoise was too simplistic, much of the political life of a culture could be understood as a battle between majority and minority peoples. As Winston Churchill and others have said, “history is written by the victors,” but the same could be said of the present while history is being made.
2. Misused to Create Divisions: Some of the more radical CRT proponents (and some in the Black Lives Matter organization) have been involved in weaponizing CRT to create destructive power conflicts between racial minorities and a White majority. It too easily can attribute everything to White privilege or focus on microaggressions that can quickly repel Whites from a deeper understanding of the issues. CRT as an ideology can be threatening and counterproductive in effectively dealing with racism.
3. Avoids Spiritual Truths: It is also true that CRT does not have explicit Christian underpinnings. CRT does not deal with inherent or individual sin but focuses primarily on institutional racism as being the cause of many social problems. CRT is also not nearly as helpful in a prescriptive way as it is in a descriptive way. It has no spiritual framework of reconciliation through confession and forgiveness. Nor does it reflect the limitations of a completely racialized view of life. It is a sophisticated but at times very blunt instrument that cannot solve our great racial and political divisions.

The Bible and CRT

CRT is a divisive concept but not nearly as divisive as the racial realities it addresses. So how do we take what is valuable from this imperfect theory to love one another better?

The Old Testament prophet Isaiah quotes the Lord saying, “Come let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). This welcoming invitation has often been used as a prelude to negotiations and conflict resolutions—it recognizes that there is a conflict but that there is also a possibility of reconciliation through reason and mutual respect.

This openness to resolution rather than resignation to continued enmity suggests a relational posture for us to take as we seek to heal the tremendous racial tensions in our country. We need all of the insight we can learn through CRT without idolizing or misconstruing any biases that might be part of it. We can recognize CRT’s limitations while also recognizing it as a resource that provides the opportunity to develop greater understanding and compassion.

With humility and reason, we can also acknowledge the many good things about the United States, our Founding Fathers, and our democracy, while simultaneously recognizing racism in past and current laws and attitudes. Awareness of our country’s weaknesses makes us no less American or patriotic; it can make us even more eager to see the United States truly offer “liberty and justice for all.”

It is also significant that in the context of Isaiah’s prophecy quoted above, the Lord is angry about the hypocrisy of the Jewish people on matters of social justice. He tells them that he hates their worship services and won’t listen to their prayers because of their “evil deeds” (Isaiah 1:16). Then, between his words of anger and his call to reconciliation, he urges his people to “seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow” (Isaiah 1:17). Pursuing social justice is a biblical mandate.

Responding to CRT

One of the common arguments against CRT or the idea of systemic racism in general is, “I wasn’t around at the time of slavery and had nothing to do with making these racist laws. Why should I feel guilty?” This may be a natural question to ask, but it’s also a question that consciously or unconsciously reveals an individualistic and inadequate approach to sin.

Although the Lord does not hold us personally accountable for the sins of others, we are affected by them—often for generations. God instructed Moses to make a provision of both sacrifice and forgiveness for unintentional communal sins (Numbers 15:22-26). Nehemiah obediently prayed in confession for the sins of his ancestral family (Nehemiah 1:6).

We also need to be aware of the sin of omission. The Apostle James says that if you know what to do and don’t do it, that is sin (James 4:17). Racism is an overt sin against all people created in the image of God. Ignoring racism is similar to what the two religious leaders did who walked by the desperate man in the story of the Good Samaritan. They did not beat the man themselves but they avoided or omitted doing anything about his condition. The primary issue then is not whether or not we are personally responsible for social injustices, but whether or not we recognize those injustices and engage with doing something about them.

Consequently, instead of either rejecting CRT carte blanche or using it as a cudgel against every racial injustice no matter how big nor how slight, we would do better to urgently reason together about what is racially unjust in our country and work to remedy those injustices with both individual and collective resolve. In other words, to make CRT a political football only relegates it to being a game. But to use CRT as even an imperfect prompt to respond to God’s command to seek justice is a way of loving others as ourselves.

After elections, many Christians admit they voted for someone who had no chance of winning, rather than voting for someone who at best was “the lesser of two evils.” Some also have done so as a personal protest against the two-party system. Such choices born out of frustration are understandable, but do they accomplish their purpose or are they actually counterproductive?

Statistically, a vote for someone other than the two major candidates is really a vote for whoever wins. For instance, in 1992 Ross Poirot ran the most successful third-party effort in the last 100 years and received a remarkable 19 percent of the popular vote. That still wasn’t enough to win and he likely took enough votes away from George H.W. Bush to give the election to Bill Clinton.

In the heavily contested election of 2000, Ralph Nader took enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida for George Bush to win. In 2016, Jill Stein of the Green Party probably took enough votes away from Hillary Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin to give those electoral votes to Donald Trump. Are these the results third-party voters really wanted or did third-party voters unintentionally help their least favorite candidate win?

Others vote for individuals they wish were running. Some even make unusual choices like Maryland Republican governor, Larry Hogan, who recently said that he voted for Ronald Reagan in this year’s election. He now has political deniability no matter who wins but was his vote meaningful?

On the surface, third-party votes or what some criticize as throw-away votes suggest that we want to stick with our conscience rather than be a part of electing an imperfect person. The reality of course is that any person we vote for will be imperfect. Any vote we cast will involve compromise. But is voting for someone who could never win really the best compromise we can make? And what are we sacrificing when we make that choice?

Identity Politics

When I lived in Chicago, I experienced the tremendous rivalry between Chicago Cubs fans and Chicago White Sox fans. A perfect day for my neighbor was when the White Sox won and the Cubs lost! He found great identity and pride in being a White Sox fan for life.

Whether we follow sports or not, we all embrace certain identities. We might consider ourselves pro-life or pro-business or pro-gun control or pro-family. When we must choose between two opposing identities, we aren’t always sure how to choose and still maintain who we are.

In this year’s election, for instance, we must choose between Trump and his rampant dishonesty and divisiveness and Biden, who is pro-choice. Most Christians would say that we don’t identify with either of these men in those ways. So many of us, then, are tempted to come to the conclusion that we must vote for someone else, rather than compromise our integrity and identity.

The problem with this is that in choosing to “save” our conscience, we miss the opportunity to be a part of a decision that will affect millions of lives.

A vivid example of this is abortion, which I wrote about in my previous blog. As I indicated then, abortions trend downward under Democratic presidents more than under Republican presidents. Yet it can be hard for someone who is pro-life to vote for a pro-choice candidate even if the real goal is to lower the number of abortions. Identity, in this case, becomes consciously or unconsciously more important than the actual result.

Compromise for the Common Good

Catholic Social Teaching and various strands of Reformed theology speak of the “common good.” This refers to what is good not just for Christians but for society as a whole. The common good is what allows all peoples to “reach their fulfillment more easily.” It reflects the biblical theology that  everyone is created in the image of God and deserves to be treated with dignity and care in society.

Thinking of others in this context adds a necessary ingredient to our political decision-making beyond just our conscience and our identity. It reminds me of the Apostle Paul’s instructions to the Christians in Philippi, “in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of others.” (see Philippians 4:2)

In the Old Testament, Jeremiah instructed the captive Jews in Babylon to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” (see Jeremiah. 29:7) Jeremiah did not say this because King Nebuchadnezzar was catering to them as a voting bloc, but because the people of God were called to be a witness among the nations. Seeking the common good is a political extension and expression of the Great Commandment of “loving your neighbor.”

With this perspective, we can look beyond identities we may be holding onto and ask, “In terms of biblical values, which candidate would best care for the poor? Who would be a better steward of the environment? Who would seek peace and unity rather than divisiveness? Who would more likely tell the truth and ‘act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God’?”

Conclusion

No candidate or political party or political system is perfect. Whoever we vote for will involve compromise. But not voting or voting for a third-party candidate is also an act of compromise and may actually be compromising our values more than we realize.

It is also good to remember that we are not marrying a candidate and we don’t need to make a moral or lasting commitment to support or defend them. Our vote does not make us supporters of all that candidate does or says and we must be free to criticize what we don’t agree with in terms of policies and practices.

Consequently, and in humility, we need to make the best choice we can in light of how likely each candidate is to promote biblical values and the common good for the country. In this way we can leave behind our fear of “identifying” with any one candidate or platform. Instead we can embrace our first identity as citizens of God’s Kingdom willing to make hard choices to live out that Kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven.

Bridget Phetasy, a podcaster who self-identifies as “politically homeless” is quoted in the Dispatch Weekly as saying, “If Trump wins, I reckon America will burn. If Trump loses, America will burn. Either way, I’m preparing for America to burn.”

Confirming these feelings, President Trump says that he “is the only thing standing between the American dream and total anarchy, madness and chaos.” He says that if he loses, “America is gone forever.” Not to be outdone, Democrats are fearful of losing our democracy if Trump wins. They also fear right-wing militias that threaten “we’re a trigger-pull away” from resisting government controls like mask mandates.

Looking at the election itself, President Trump stokes fears by claiming that millions of mail-in ballots will be fraudulent while Democrats fear that millions of mail-in ballots will be disqualified because of Republican interference.

Politicians, commentators, and Americans across the political spectrum are increasingly fearful for our country. It is a fear not only of the consequences of our presidential election but tragically it is also a fear of one another. We have become a tribalized society of identity politics. Some of us fear those who use their racial or sexual identity for political power while we don’t understand the inherent power of centuries of white and male privilege. Some of us fear the political influence of those who aren’t Christians while others fear the influence of those who are.

On top of all of these political fears are the continuing fears of the pandemic and our economic crisis. We have a low-grade fever of uncertainty and of fear that spikes with every new death projection from COVID 19 or when there is another police shooting of a black man with subsequent protests. If we are black, we fear constantly for our lives and if we are a small business owner we fear for our livelihood. And after months of COVID trauma and drama, we’ve come to fear even our fears.

Coping with Fears

It is tempting to dismiss these fears as just temporary or pre-election hype that will somehow go away like the virus is supposed to according to the president. But in our heart of hearts, we know that like the virus, our deep fears are real and will have lasting consequences.

We could deal with our fears by trying to be impervious to them, channeling the extreme confidence of those like Franklin Roosevelt who famously said, “there is nothing to fear but fear itself.” Courage and fortitude are great characteristics in the face of danger and fear, but they in themselves do not eliminate the reasons for fear. Without action, positive thinking can quickly become denial with debilitating results.

There is also the temptation to spiritualize our fears and “just trust God,” but that is likely the right answer to a different question. The different question is “Who do we trust?” as if there is any doubt of whether we should put our trust in God or in politicians. There is no contest! The Psalmist says, “It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes.” (see Psalm 118:9). Our faith in God is our ultimate security and should not be second to any earthly competition.

A right question in this situation, though, is, “How do we trust God?” in a democracy where we have the freedom not only to vote but to use our votes and political involvement to be “salt and light” in the world. Do we trust God by dismissing our responsibilities as citizens and not voting because there isn’t a perfect candidate? Do we trust God by avoiding biblical issues of justice? Or, do we trust God to give us spiritual discernment to make political choices that would best reflect Christian values and most benefit the common good?

Election Fears

It is commonplace to say that this election is a great inflection point in American history. In a highly polarized electorate, it is also true that Christians are right at that inflection point of influencing which way the country goes. Many evangelicals lean toward reelecting a deeply flawed president in order to maintain their cultural influence on issues like abortion, human sexuality, and religious freedom. Their fear of losing power is greater than their fear of compromising their moral convictions.

Many other Christians lean toward choosing Biden as a compassionate leader who seeks to bring people together. They see him as someone who cares deeply about biblical issues like immigration, racial and economic justice, and environmental stewardship. They are willing to take the risk that the number of abortions and matters of religious liberty would not change much, if at all, with a change of administrations.

In the next eight weeks before the election, it is vitally important that Christians wrestle with these competing convictions in a thoughtful and humble way. Someone who does this well is Ron Sider, who is a pro-life theological conservative. Ron recently posted “Why I Will Vote for Joe Biden,” which sets a high bar for careful reasoning and spiritual discernment that is worth reading and considering. You can read his post here.

But how does thoughtful reasoning like Sider’s help us deal with our fears for our country? It doesn’t take away the reasons for our fears but it does provide careful and knowledgeable insights into the issues we are facing. We often are more afraid of what we don’t know than what we do. We like doctors to give us an accurate diagnosis. We want to know the risks associated with certain occupations or travel decisions. Naming our fears helps us cope with them and Sider helps us to articulate the issues at stake. I highly encourage you to read his words as you wrestle with your own fears and decisions for the upcoming election.

An Antidote to Fear

Finally, I want to point to the words of the Apostle John, who says that “perfect love casts out fear” (see 1 John 4:18). Unfortunately, a biblical love that is “patient and kind, not boastful and not proud, that doesn’t dishonor others or is self-seeking, or easily angered…but rejoices with the truth” (see 1 Corinthians 13) is a rare commodity in contemporary political discussions. Anger, deceit, and ridicule are more often the weapons of political debate.

However, if we as Christians would speak and vote out of love for others rather than out of fear of others or fear of losing what we consider to be power, we would be a winsome witness to a very fearful nation and world. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “Because we love something else more than this world, we love even this world better than those who know no other.”