The Doctrine of the Lesser of Two Evils:

A Biblical Analysis and Application as it Pertains to Voting and the Abolition of Abortion

© Dr. Daryl Rodriguez, 2024

(This article was last updated on October 21st, 2024)

Introduction

There is a very dangerous doctrine that has been circulating in our nation for multiple decades. This is the doctrine of the lesser of two evils, from here foreword, abbreviated as the LOTE. The doctrine of the LOTE basically affirms that when it comes to voting, we only have two “real” choices, and therefore, when given two immoral options, we must vote for the lesser of two evils. It is my contention that this view has caused continual damage to our society, as it has only perpetuated evil.

What are we to think of the doctrine of the LOTE? Is it correct? Is it right and moral? Most importantly, is it biblical? As Christians, we are to live out every aspect of our lives through a biblical worldview, not a worldly or pragmatic worldview. As the Book of Ecclesiastes spells out, our ultimate duty as human beings is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

In this article, I will be examining the morality of the principle of the doctrine of the LOTE itself and how that principle is applied to voting. I will conclude that since the principle is evil, it should then be rejected and that no Christian should ever vote for the LOTE. I will, also, examine the application of voting as it relates to the advancement of the abolition of abortion in this nation. In this section I will conclude that voting for the LOTE is contrary and incompatible to abolition.

The Problem and the Doctrine of the LOTE as Applied to Voting

As stated in the introduction, proponents of the Doctrine of the LOTE would generally make the following affirmative argument, which will, also, serve for the definition, which stated is: When it comes to voting, we only have two real choices, and therefore, when given two immoral options, we must vote for the lesser of two evils. Of course, it should be noted that there could be more than two options in a political race, but for the purpose of my main discussion, I am arguing that our political system has evolved largely into a duopoly or binary concept. Though I would argue that this system is neither good nor necessary, it seems evident that the system has been widely accepted as the norm. Hence, theoretically, we could apply and discuss the same principles with the “lesser of three evils” or “lesser of four evils,” etc. However, my conclusions will largely be the same.

Some questions that comes to mind are: Why are we even having this discussion? Why do so many people believe there are no moral options when it comes to voting? Why do people believe the only option is two vote and support the least evil of candidates running for a particular office?

I believe that one of the main issues is the reality that it is undeniable that the social and political landscape in the United States, is by-in-large, a mess of evil. Of course, there are a myriad of reasons why this is so. However, I believe that one of the main reasons is that the people of God and society as a whole have accepted and perpetuated the Doctrine of the LOTE. Seeing that most of society has accepted this faulty political binary, and in order to win as many votes as possible, pragmatism has resulted with mass compromise from both sides of this polarized system. For the most part, this binary system has been expressed by “left vs right,” and “liberal vs conservative,” as espoused by the two major correlating parties of “Democrats vs Republicans.” However, the problem is, as a result of both sides moving to the “middle,” no one is truly getting what they want. Those who align with wickedness are not getting what they want, and those who align with righteousness are not getting what they want. So, in a sense, there is a true and biblical “binary” of sorts. It is the binary of good and evil, wickedness and righteousness, light and dark, children of the Devil and children of God.

That being said, from a Christian perspective, God does not desire His children to ever compromise and side with evil.  However, this is exactly what is happening when people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil. So it is no wonder that we have so much corruption in our government, as well as so many unjust laws and judicial decisions. If people continue to offer their support for men and women who run for political office who don’t truly stand for uncompromised righteousness, why are they surprised when those rulers don’t wield their civil authority in accordance with God’s moral precepts? Instead, and by way of example, what has resulted have been many wicked laws. This should remind us of the warning in Isaiah 10:1-2 which states, “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees, and the writers who keep writing oppression, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be their spoil, and that they may make the fatherless their prey! (ESV) Apparently, things have not changed much since Isaiah’s day. In addition, Matthew 24:12 reveals that this same detrimental mindset would continue in the future and adds a resulting factor when it states, And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. (NKJV)

If we desire to see righteousness restored in our land, we must move away from siding with evil including the practice of supporting the Doctrine of the LOTE!

The Answer to the Problem of the Doctrine of the LOTE

Besides the fact that there are vast problems that have resulted from those who have espoused the LOTE, there is an inherent problem with the validity of the doctrine itself. Actually, I would argue that there are multiple problems. The doctrine is illogical, unreasonable, and most  importantly, unbiblical. 

Most true Christians would agree with the general principle that we should not support evil. However, there is a huge problem with those who support the LOTE. To begin, by its very definition, if you support the “lesser of two evils” you are still supporting some amount of evil. I honestly don’t see how you can get around that simple and clear truth. Has not God said, “And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just” (Romans 3:8 NKJV). Yet for some reason, Christians believe in the case of the LOTE in the political realm, it is justifiable to support a lesser evil. There seems to be two prominent reasons for this justification.

First, some supporters argue that there are no other options and that we must vote for the lesser evils. They argue to not do so is to allow the greater evil to prevail. With this reasoning, proponents actually admit that they are supporting clear evil (even if it is indirectly), but they have no other choice, so they might as well support the lesser moral evil. However, this is faulty thinking as it is a false dichotomy. There are always other options in the realm of politics, and God never wants us to compromise with evil. He always provides a way of escape (for further explanation, see the section “Responding to Other Common Objections from the Doctrine of the LOTE”).

Second, there are others who employ the justification by denying that the act of voting is not actually “supporting” and therefore, voting the LOTE is not supporting any evil. This too is an error. To begin, let us examine a dictionary definition of the word “vote.” Webster gives a definition that iterates “an expression of approval, agreement or judgment…to support by one’s vote.”[1] Nevertheless, some would retort that one can vote for a particular candidate that espouses both evil policies and views, as well as some righteous ones. They claim that one can support just the good and not necessarily the evil. Finally, some say that voting for the lesser evil is actually voting for the greater good.

First, let us examine the claim that “voting is not supporting” and therefore, one is not supporting evil when they vote for the LOTE. To begin, I would agree that just because one votes for a particular candidate, they aren’t necessarily saying they agree with everything that candidate believes. This is true in realms outside of politics as well. For example, a congregant in a local church fellowship would likely not agree with every single view/opinion of their pastor. Unless the view of the pastor is a clear moral sin, we should leave room for grace and difference of opinion. As we are all human beings, we are all fallible in our thinking. However, if that pastor unrepentantly holds to a view that is clearly evil, and that congregant votes to have him as pastor, and attends that church, that congregant is approving of that evil to some degree, even if they do not participate in the same evil. This clearly should not be. The same is true with a political candidate. If a particular candidate holds to a view, whether it is personal or a political plank/platform, and we vote for them, we are supporting them in their political office and giving approval of that which they espouse, even if we don’t personally commit the same evil.

Nevertheless, some may question what is actually “evil” and “good.” By arguing that these terms are not clear, or perhaps by applying a specific definition to the terms, many dismiss the idea that voting for the lesser of two “evils” is particularly wrong. With that, let us examine the terms. To begin, and as I will expound later on this, for the argument I am making, I am not equating the term “evil” with “sinner” or “good” with “non-sinner.” Throughout my argument I, also, will use the terms “wicked” and “righteous.” Again, here I am not speaking of sin versus non-sin. As we would all agree, only Jesus Christ was sinless. However, I do concede that the terms “good” and “evil” can be defined and used in reference to sin. That being said, I just don’t believe they are limited to this aspect. Indeed, the Bible does seem to indicate that anything contrary to the character or will of God is evil. Psalm 51:4 says, “Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight—That You may be found just when You speak, And blameless when You judge” (NKJV). So then, in this sense, the opposite term “good” or “righteous” would be defined as that which conforms to the moral law and character of God.

So, how am I using the terms for my position against the Doctrine of the LOTE? Let us begin with the Word of God. One of the most critical verses (which I will mention repeatedly) is Proverbs 29:2. It states, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.” Notice that it is Almighty God who has employed the two terms and is making a clear distinction between them. It is clear with this usage, which happens to be in relation to governmental rulers, it is not speaking of sin in general. For as we have stated before, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, NKJV). Indeed, “As it is written: There is none righteous, no not one;” (Romans 3:10, NKJV). Even Isaiah says, “But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;” (Isaiah 64:6a, NKJV). In these passages, it is speaking of true “righteousness” which only comes from God. That is, apart from God’s imputed righteousness, we are not truly righteous at all. However, we can be declared righteous based on our faith and works that evidence our faith. Even in the Old Testament, it is said of Abraham, “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). In addition, James clarifies this concept further when he says:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (James 2:14-24, NKJV)     

So, what is God referring to here and in what sense is He using the terms “wicked” and “righteous” in Proverbs 29:2? I would argue that when it comes to those ruling in authority in a specific realm such as in government, they can be generally characterized as a righteous or wicked ruler. A wicked ruler would unrepentantly hold to personal view, political plank or platform that is clearly and directly contrary to the moral law of God. In contrast, a righteous ruler would be one who does the opposite. That is, he does not unrepentantly hold a particular view, political plank or platform that directly contradicts God’s moral law. The same concept can be applied to a piece of legislation, or the plank/platform themselves. I will come back to this concept of “righteous versus wicked rulers” in the section on Responding to Common Objections.

Based on this argumentation, I would argue that we, as Bible-believing Christians should never vote for the lesser of two evils. In doing so, we are giving tacit approval, endorsement, and support for evil. This is clearly not biblical. Instead, when we vote, we should follow biblical guidelines, only vote our consciences, and put principles over politics. Theologian Charles Spurgeon encapsulated this sentiment when he said, “Of two evils, choose neither. Don’t choose the least, but let all evils alone.”[2] C.S. Lewis also echoed this idea when he stated:

“I feel a strong desire to tell you – and I expect you feel a strong desire to tell me – which of these two errors is the worse. That is the devil getting at us. He always sends errors into the world in pairs – pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them.”[3]

Now, let us turn to the claim that voting for the lesser of two evils, we are actually voting for the greater good. However, this is also faulty thinking. First, God makes a clear distinction of what is evil and what is good. These realities contradict each other as they are opposites. In fact, God has declared, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, NKJV). Hence, God has forbade us to call that which is good evil and that which is evil good. Evil is still evil, even if it is “lesser.” Conversely, just like it is possible to have a greater and lesser evil, it is, also, possible to actually have a greater and lesser good. This would be like having two righteous and godly candidates running for office. They both could be considered righteous and good men, but one might actually be “better” in some sense. Again, here we are not speaking of their imputed righteousness in Christ, but perhaps in their other views and deeds. Perhaps one might have even more strengths and qualities than the other. We will get back to this idea in the next section.

The Justification for Rejecting the Doctrine of the LOTE

In the previous section I covered the basic concept that voting for a lesser evil is still evil, and therefore, we as Christians should never support that which is evil. However, in this section, I will further give justification for why the Doctrine of the LOTE should be rejected as such. I will give both a response from Scripture, as well as from logic and reason based on biblical principles.

Let us first examine the Scriptures. 2 Corinthians 6:14b (NLT) says, “How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?” In addition, Ephesians 5:11 (NLT) says, “Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them.” From these verses, we can rightly apply the principle that Christians should not be a part of anything evil. By doing so, we are supporting that evil. Yet, this is exactly what is taking place when we give our vote and support to a candidate, platform, or plank that upholds clear moral evil.

In addition, Proverbs 29:2 clearly states, “When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan” (NLT).We will come back to this verse in more detail on some of the other implications and applications of the principle in this verse. However, for now, it is unmistakable that God delineates between that which is a godly ruler versus that which is a wicked ruler. It follows to reason that if we have the ability to elect our leaders in a constitutional republic, we should not put forth our support and vote for anyone who is an evil ruler.

Another important biblical concept and question to consider is “where does our faith fit in?” Of course, all throughout the Scriptures, the command to have faith in God in all things is preeminent. Hence, when it comes to politics and voting, faith should be at the foundation of our choices. Nevertheless, I have found that many times, faith goes out the window, and is replaced by fear when it comes to voting. In fact, I believe this is at the root of the fallacy of the Doctrine of the LOTE. Why do so many professing Christians (and others) continue to compromise and vote for evil (even when they admit it is evil)? I believe it is largely out of fear. Some might fear the worse evil of the other candidate. Some might fear the prospect of a worse economy. Some might fear the possibility of losing more of their constitutional rights. Of course, all of us as God-fearing biblical Christians would desire to have our rights protected, our safety protected, a healthy economy, and good moral laws in our land.

However, under the LOTE fallacy, proponents argue that if we vote for the LOTE, then it is better to get less evil and more good, even though, with our vote, we will still be supporting some evil. Again, the ends don’t justify the means and we should never do evil that good may come (Romans 3:8). In reality, when we compromise like this, I believe it comes down to lack of faith. This is the fear of man and the things of this world instead of doing what is right and placing our full trust in God. What will give up for piece of bread and some water? Consider the following Scriptures: Psalm 146:3 (NIV) says, “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings who cannot save.” Psalm 20:7 (NIV) says, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” Finally, in Matthew 4:1-11, Satan tempts Jesus with bread and the kingdoms of the world if he would only submit to His own flesh and the false worship of the Devil, himself. However, Christ did right by rejecting these physical temptations and instead placed His full faith in the plan of His Father and His plan.

In addition to these direct biblical arguments against the Doctrine of the LOTE, we should also consider logic, reason, and a philosophy based on a biblical principles. True logic and reason come from God and are biblical! God has commanded “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind (Matthew 22:37b, ESV, emphasis mine). Isaiah 1:18 (ESV) says, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD” (emphasis mine). Let us examine some of these concepts.

First, simple logic will conclude that a vote for evil (even if lesser) is still evil. Second, as I have previously stated, the ends don’t justify the means and we should never do evil (or more specifically, “support evil” in this conversation) to accomplish good. To illustrate this principle, consider this challenging hypothetical example.

For illustration purposes, let us start with the current (2024) presidential race. We have two main candidates running, Kamala Harris (democrat) and Donald Trump (republican). There are many conservative Christians who say that they must vote for Donald Trump (for one of the reasons previously mentioned). However, what if Kamala won and in the next race (2028), Kamala decided to run as a republican (but still with the same views/policies) and a more “evil” candidate (let’s say Hillary Clinton for example) ran against her as the democrat? In order to be consistent in the Doctrine of the LOTE, one should then vote for the perceived lesser evil of the two, which in this case, for many, would be Kamala Harris, the exact person that proponents of the LOTE adamantly thought it wrong to vote for previously! Now, what if Clinton (the “more evil”) beat Harris and in the following election ran against someone as evil as Adolf Hitler. Now proponents will say they must vote for Clinton because of course, Hitler would be more evil. Let’s keep going and let’s say Hitler (as the “conservative”) wins and ends up running in the following election against Stalin (as the liberal “communist”). Well of course, as much as we might not like it, we would have to vote for Hitler, because, at least he’s not a communist, and has not murdered as many innocent people as Stalin. I am sure you can see how this is working out. However, let’s take it one last ludicrous step. Let’s say that Stalin became president and ended up running against the Antichrist. You guessed it, now of course, we all should vote for the less evil Stalin. Suffice to say, we can stop the illustration here. After all, is there anyone more evil than the Antichrist?… Satan perhaps? Certainly, we wouldn’t vote for the Antichrist…or would we?

Some might say that this hypothetical example is completely unrealistic and ridiculous. In one aspect, I would agree. However, it is not ridiculous to believe that one that truly espouses the LOTE would end up going down that disastrous road in the real world, at least to some degree. After all, in order to be consistent, this is exactly what that doctrine necessitates and what they should believe. It is the logical outcome of the doctrine. What is truly ridiculous is the fact that many Christians would continue to support this line of thinking when the logical outcome has one actually supporting such clear evil. That being said, most reasonable Christians would actually admit that somewhere down the line of the hypothetical examples, there would be a line that they would not cross. So what and where is the line? As I explained previous, we should draw the line where God has drawn it in His Word. That is, there are righteous and wicked rulers, and God clearly admonishes us not to support wickedness. Hence, we should not vote and support any wicked ruler.

What if someone who espouses the LOTE says that though they would support a lesser wicked ruler (like Trump, or even Harris), but adds that there would be a limit? They might argue that if there was another candidate that was as wicked as a Hitler or Stalin, they would not (and should not) vote for them. What would my response be in this case? I would retort that such logic is fundamentally flawed. Of course, to this point, we would all agree that no reasonable person should vote for someone as clearly wicked as Hitler or Stalin. Nevertheless, if they admit that it is wrong to do that, then their doctrine of the LOTE is clearly not consistent. Why then should we follow it?

Responding to Common Objections from the Doctrine of the LOTE

In addition to some of the arguments previously mentioned, here are a few more detailed responses to some of the most common objections to those like me that say that the Doctrine of the LOTE should NOT be followed:

But he or she is not winnable!

Argument: If we vote for a righteous independent or third party candidate that is not the front-runner, there is no way they can win. Hence, if we vote for this unknown, instead of the popular major party candidate (even if they are a lesser evil), it is pointless.

Response: To begin, I would argue that they will never be “winnable” in terms of numbers, votes, etc., as long as God-fearing Christians continue to never vote for or support them in any way. Perhaps even more important is the biblical principle that God has never been about human “winnability.” Instead, God focuses on people and nations standing firm in righteousness and faith in Him. Time and time again we see that God has used the weakest, least, and unwinnable characters to accomplish a great victory. By doing this, God’s perfect will is manifested and it is He who gets all the glory. The following are just a few examples of “unwinnable” characters that placed their faith in God, which in turn yielded victorious results: 1. Gideon, with an army of 300 defeated the Midianite army of 100,000; 2. David defeated Goliath even though he was smaller, had no armor or sword of his own. In doing so, David declared “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied” (1Samuel 17:45, NKJV). 3. Samson defeated 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of a donkey. 4. Joshua and Caleb entered the promised land, fought the “giants” and won battle after battle (until Achan’s sin). 4. Elisha, when surrounded by a vast army, and his aide was in fear, asked God to let his aide see what he saw- an insurmountable army of angels prepared to defend their lives! (2 Kings 6). Some might retort, that these examples do not pertain to voting. Though true, the principle still applies. Perhaps if we would just place our trust in God without compromise and not try to rely on human “winnability,” God will honor and bless it.

There is no perfect candidate; we are not voting for a pastor, and Jesus is not running!

Argument: There is no perfect candidate and we are all sinners. We are not “writing a love letter” with our vote. We are not voting for a pastor and Jesus is not running. Therefore, we must always vote for a lesser evil.

Response: This is a strawman argument. We are not arguing for a sinless candidate (as only Jesus is sinless), but for a righteous as opposed to a wicked candidate. It is God who makes the distinction between righteous and wicked rulers in Proverbs 29:2. We can see specific examples of these types for rulers in the book of First and Second Kings. Throughout the book, God uses phrases like “he walked in all the sins of his father,” “his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God,” “did evil in the sight of the LORD,” to distinguish wicked rulers. Conversely, God employed phrases like, “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD,” and “heart was loyal to the LORD.” So how do they compare? Interestingly, among the kings of Judah, there were eight righteous kings and twelve wicked kings. Of all the nineteen kings that reigned in Israel, all were considered wicked, and none righteous. We can apply these same principles and distinguish between righteous and wicked rulers today and in every age. Again, even “righteous rulers” today are not sinless, much in the same way righteous rulers such Asa, Joash, and others made mistakes. Even exemplary examples such as Hezekiah and Josiah were sinners and made some errors (regardless if these errors are not recorded in Scripture).

The fact is, we can (and have had) righteous candidates with a righteous platform. In this, we can have a minimum righteous standard. This standard can be distinguished in a negative sense (that which is in clear moral violation to God’s Word). However, it can, also, be distinguished from a positive description.[4] In other words, what are the fundamental characteristics of a righteous ruler?  In establishing the government of Israel, God provides us with a helpful instruction on how to recognize and choose righteous rulers in places such Exodus 18:21, as well as Deuteronomy 1:13 and 17:20. Exodus 21:21(NKJV) states, “Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” Deuteronomy 1:13 (NKJV) says, “Choose wise, understanding, and knowledgeable men from among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.” Finally, Deuteronomy 17:20a (NKJV) adds that “that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren.” From these passages, we can construct a “minimum standard” of righteousness that leaders should be chosen. These are 1. Wise/Understanding, 2. Just, 3. Fearing God, 4. Hating Covetousness, 5. Humble, and 6. Honest. We absolutely can have a candidate/government ruler with these qualities. Since we live in a republic in the United States, we should only vote and support candidates that meet these qualifications. Sadly, many times, we have very few people running for office that meet these requirements.

That being said, even for the office of President of the United States (POTUS), I believe there have been such godly men who have run. The problem is, most Christians continue to cave to the fallacy of the LOTE and refuse to vote and support them. In addition, when it comes to the POTUS, some supporters of the LOTE argue that we really have never had a president who met all of those qualifications, and instead compromised by espousing one or more clear anti-biblical view/policy. As result, they argue that we must continue to vote for the LOTE. To this I would say that we can debate and perhaps even agree that there may be less than a handful of past presidents that have met the qualifications. However, I would argue that even if it could be demonstrated that we have NEVER had a president that passed the qualification test should not necessarily be that surprising. Remember the kings of Judah and Israel? In a time period spanning hundreds of years longer than our country has existed with presidents, there was not one single king of Israel!

There are no good Christian candidates running!

Argument: There are no good Christian candidates running and therefore, we must vote for the LOTE.

Response: There usually are at least a few righteous Christian candidates running (perhaps as independent or in a third party). For example, for the office of POTUS, for the past several elections, Mr. Thomas Hoefling has been such a candidate.[5] However, once again, most Christians do not vote for them, because they do not deem them “winnable.” Sadly, more and more Christians continue to compromise and not support these candidates, the more discouraged they become and many times no longer feel compelled to run. This perpetuates a negative cyclical pattern.

Argument: There are only two choices in any election, and both are some amount of evil. Hence we are obligated to vote for the only reasonable option, the LOTE!

Response: This is a false dichotomy. We have more choices. This is true in the primaries and in the general election. As stated before, there are usually righteous independent and/or third party candidates running. In many states, even if they are not on the ballot, they can be officially written in. If we feel like there are not as many, or even none that we can vote for, perhaps we, ourselves should consider running. We can be the righteous candidate! One last option is to not vote at all (if you are not able to write someone in). We have a right to vote, but not an obligation to vote. Finally, as mentioned before, God will not put us in a position that forces us to do evil. He always provides a way of escape to honor Him. 1 Corinthians 10:13 (NKJV) promises His children, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

If I don’t vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil will win!

Argument: If we don’t vote the for LOTE, we will ensure that the greater evil will win!

Response: This is human reasoning, not the wisdom and reasoning of God. We are only obligated by God to do what is right and good. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If we vote for the LOTE, we will actually help some amount of evil to win.

It is just a wasted vote!

Argument: If we don’t vote for the LOTE, and one of the main two parties/candidates, we are just wasting our vote!

Response: A person’s vote is truly wasted when he does not use it to express his actual beliefs. A vote for a righteous candidate/party (that one actually agrees with) is an investment in them and will help develop them.

But it’s the greater good!

Argument: We are not actually voting for the lesser of two evils, but for the greater good.

Response: By definition, a lesser evil is not good, but evil. They are opposites. To say otherwise violates the law of non-contradiction, true logic, and God’s Word. In fact, God has said, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20, NKJV). In addition, Proverbs 24:23-25 (NKJV) teaches us, “These things also belong to the wise: It is not good toshow partiality in judgment. He who says to the wicked, “You are righteous,” Him the people will curse; Nations will abhor him. But those who rebuke the wicked will have delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.” One biblical example of two wicked rulers would be perhaps king Omri vs. king Ahab. They were both clearly wicked, but perhaps one was more wicked than the other. In contrast, it is possible to vote for the greater of two actual good rulers. In a modern governmental election, this would not be a choice between two evil candidates, but two righteous candidates. For example, perhaps there are two third party candidates that are Christian men that meet the minimum leadership moral standards of Exodus and Deuteronomy. That is, neither candidate unrepentantly holds to a clear immoral position, either personally or in a plank/platform. However, there may be other tertiary issues that some would deem better than others and believe one of the two candidates would be a better righteous choice. Among Old Testament righteous kings, perhaps this would be the choice between Hezekiah and Josiah.

God uses wicked rulers to accomplish His will!

Argument: All throughout history, God has used wicked rulers (even from heathen nations) to accomplish His will, even if it’s judgment! Hence, we should not have a problem with voting for the LOTE and being part of God’s sovereign plan.

Response: Indeed, I do believe that God is the One who establishes all rulers (both wicked and righteous). For example, in the Old Testament, God used wicked nations like  Canaanites, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians to bring judgment on Israel. Indeed, His Word says, “And He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and raises up kings” (Daniel 2:21a, NKJV). Romans 13:1b (NKJV) says, “For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Yet, just as in times of old, in modern times, we must remember that rulers like Biden, Hitler, Stalin, etc., have all been established by God. However, most bible-believing Christians will admit that we should never vote for people as wicked as Hitler or Stalin. So, it is clear, we should still not compromise by supporting wicked rulers, but if they happen to get into office, so be it. Whether there are righteous or wicked rulers in place, God is sovereign and will accomplish His perfect will.

Voting For the LOTE and The Abolition of Abortion

There is a movement across this nation and the world rightly named the abolition of abortion movement. In contrast to the regulation of abortion through unjust incremental steps, the abolition movement seeks to not compromise by demanding the total and immediate abolition of government sanctioned abortion carried out under the “color of law.”[6] One of the fundamental tenets of abolition virtually every self-proclaimed abolitionist would agree to is that abolition is uncompromising. As abolitionists we should not compromise by supporting views, policies, and legislation that support that which is immoral, unjust, and iniquitous.  This same standard should apply to the leaders and politicians that espouse and support such ungodly standards. In addition, there should be consistency at every level of government, whether local, state, or federal.

It should then be clear that when it comes to the principle of the voting for the LOTE, an abolitionist who claims to follow the moral standard of God’s Word should never support a wicked ruler. And to give a more specific example as it pertains to abolition, if a candidate espouses a view whereby they support child sacrifice to any degree (like Trump who supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother), it should go without saying that he should never receive our support and vote. Voting for a wicked ruler like Trump would be contrary to the abolition of abortion and all that abolition and principles God’s Word stands for.

Conclusion 

The doctrine of the lesser of two evils is a very dangerous teaching that has caused great destruction in our society. Though all human beings have their own responsibility to do right, the Bible says that “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17a, KJV). In addition, 2 Chronicles 7:14 (NKJV) says, “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” When it comes to compromising with the LOTE, Christians and the church universal have largely dropped the ball out of fear, apathy, and ignorance. We as people of faith, when we vote, need to vote for only righteous candidates and “let the chips fall where they may” so to speak. Why? Because we know who controls those chips! If we desire to please God in our voting, and if we desire to uphold a righteous standard in our government that honors Him, may we demonstrate our faith by not voting for the lesser of two evils.

On a final note, to my fellow Christians who adhere to the LOTE, as important as this doctrine is, I do not consider this a salvific issue. They are still my brothers and sisters and I do not believe it warrants dissociation (non-fellowship). That being said, I do think it is a critical error in doctrine, and one that I believe has severe consequences. My prayer is that they would change their erroneous view.


[1] “Vote.” Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Dilithium Press, Ltd, Barnes and Noble Inc, 1994, pp 1601.

[2] The Salt Cellars – Proverbs & Quaint Sayings. Vol 1-2, page 341.

[3] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2001), 186.

[4] Portions of this argument is adapted from Bill Fortenberry’s analysis of the passages presented here. For a detailed examination and discussion on this, please see Fortenberry, “Christian Voting: A Biblical Guide,” last modified February 12, 2020. Accessed October 17, 2024, http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/christian-voting?fbclid=IwY2xjawF-IIhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUyMU1TG9OLjlDJqk7_4-5_Pb9q3LKGsBSTD84awPTIp9y4Mi3GJHgXB7g_aem_xR0LzNK8udPf-fxgyvTKQA

[5] For more information on presidential candidate, Thomas Hoefling, please see https://www.tomhoefling.com/  . Two other great sources related to Hoefling and his work are: https://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/ and https://www.selfgovernment.us/

[6] For more information on the abolition of abortion versus the regulation and incrementalism, see https://abolitionistsrising.com/