‘Christianity’ Today Warns Christians Not to Vote Because “Voting is Important”

For the powers of the evangelical left, it’s not about getting Christians to vote for Kamala Harris. They know that legitimate believers in Jesus will not do that. Rather, for them it’s about getting Christians not to vote for Donald Trump (or any other candidate who doesn’t have a progressive, anti-Christian worldview).

In recent months, the flagship publication of America’s left wing, founded by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association in 1956, has ran article after article begging Christians to stay away from the polls this November. The publication seems to be in Holy War against Christian civic responsibility, but the most recent article from the news and commentary blog takes the cake for illogical ramblings.

Before we get to that article, consider their other posts this election season. They include, Will Your Presidential Vote Send You To Hell? (telling voters it’s okay to vote for whatever candidate they feel like), The Most Important Election of Our Lifetime (claiming that this election is not, in fact, important), and Stop. Look. Listen. Voting Democrat (with David French).

It suffices to say that Christianity Today thinks Christians can vote one of two ways with a clear conscience this election cycle. The first way is to vote Democrat. The second way is to not vote at all.

In their latest devilish appeal to keep Christians from being the salt and light in America, political scientist Robert Postnick claims that, “no viable candidate aligns with our core values—or even comes close.”

Postick, is a professor of political science at the University of Findlay (a private Christian university in Flindlay, Ohio), which boasts itself an LGBTQ safe space and publishes its “pride index score” on its website.

Postick’s other contribution to evangelicalism, besides encouraging Christians not to vote, include ranting and railing in academic journals about how terrible it is Generation Z calls things “gay” as an insult, doing a study of 890 students to determine the root causes of students using the slur, “gay.” Which, if you think about it, is pretty gay.

Taking a break from studying “homophobia,” Postick postulates in Christianity Today that evangelical believers should not vote if they take voting seriously.

For the piece, Postick dived right into unnecessary racialism, claiming:

The way we talk about voting in many predominantly white evangelical churches sends more than one message. In recent history, it has often been a thinly veiled encouragement to vote Republican. But it also sends the message that you must vote, that voting is an American duty and possibly even a Christian duty. Here I want to focus on that second claim about voting itself.

We hope you caught that, you dirty white people. It’s not an evangelical thing. It’s an evangelical white thing [insert dramatic music]. This is pretty part and parcel to the common leftist argument, triangulating Christians of different melanin counts and engaging in not-so-subtle but entirely unnecessary racial division. It sends the message that if you disagree, you might just be an ethno-centric racist.

We would disagree, however, that in evangelical churches there is a thinly veiled encouragement to vote Republican. Rather, there is a rather explicit exhortation to vote Christian. It’s just that every Bible-believing evangelical knows that can’t possibly include the Democratic Party.

Ignoring entirely why evangelicals prefer Republicans (for example, they don’t want to chop the genitals off of kids, ruin reproductive capacity by harmful drugs, kill infants in the womb, or place the kids who survive abortion atop the knee of drag queens at the public library), Postick instead goes straight to the “voting is not a Christian duty” argument.

There is no biblical mandate to vote…The problem is that many voters feel cross‑pressured. It’s not always obvious how we should vote. Sometimes, none of the viable candidates align with our core values—or even come close.  

There literally is a mandate to vote, which Protestia has explained with Scripture in Yes, It’s a Sin Not to Vote. Here’s Why (With Scripture). The simple Biblical explanation is that governments are tasked by God to rule according to God’s definitions of good and evil (Romans 13:3-5). And in the United States, “a government by the people and of the people,” our Republic is ruled by voters indirectly through their representatives.

Should a Christian decide not to vote, they are deciding not to rule the nation according to God’s definitions of good and evil. That would be as wicked of them as if, for example, the Biden-Harris Administration lit up the White House in sodomy celebration lights.

You can almost hear Satan’s slithering, lisping voice come alive in the digital pages of Christianity Today. We’re commanded to be salt and light (Matthew 5:13), preserving our nation and giving it the light of God and God’s laws, yet Billy Graham’s ecumenist spiritual love-children are telling us to stay home.

Why? Postick explains…

This year, the Democratic presidential candidate holds positions I believe to be inconsistent with Scripture. But I also believe the Republican candidate lacks the requisite character to be president.

Pray-tell, which candidate benefits from Christians staying home this election? Obviously, it would be the candidate Christians are most likely to vote for, which would be Donald Trump. This isn’t a well-thought out lesson in Christian ethics from Postick. It’s a Democratic campaign talking-point designed to elect Kamala Harris to the White House. It’s as obvious as it is stupid.

Postick does not explain why Trump has measurably worse character than Kamala Harris, whose name he only knows because she slept her way to the top of California’s political realm with a married man (that’s a fact). Selling her body for political appointment, Harris is hardly a standard of Christian character. Postick does not explain why prosecuting journalists to assist Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of dead baby parts is not a character issue. Political positions, quite obviously, speak of one’s character.

Postick also fails to place his “I’m too moral to vote for anyone” claim into any historical context. Benjamin Franklin (not a president, but a Founding Father) was the father of at least one illegitimate child, frequented prostitutes, and said of himself that he has “intrigues with low women.” Thomas Jefferson had at least six love children with his mistress and slave, Sally Hemmings. U.S. Presidents, some of whom surely would have earned Postick’s vote, were famous womanizers and include 20th Century presidents like FDR and JFK. Winston Churchill, idolized by almost everyone who doesn’t quite understand history well enough, would rank women on a looks in scale from one-to-one-thousand at parties, reportedly cheated on his wife, and was a confirmed, slobbering drunk.

It’s not that Donald Trump is exceptionally immoral. It’s that Trump promotes a worldview that does not make government god, and Statists Progressives find it a repugnant position.

Furthermore, when you hear evangelical leftists claim that Trump is somehow uniquely immoral, but don’t mention why, they’re dog-signaling claims from the Loose Woman Brigade that Trump (or Kavanaugh or whoever else’s political career they’re trying to stop) have engaged in some kind of ill-defined, factually unsupported claims of sexual assault, but don’t want to bring up their claims precisely for the reason they are obviously unsubstantiated. Or, perhaps, Postick refers to Donald Trump’s conviction of rather nebulous crimes at the hands of an activist prosecutor. Lefties like Postick don’t want to say why or how Trump is uniquely immoral; they just want to mention his character deficiencies like they’re an observable fact and move along.

In a peculiar way, and Postick gets points for novelty on this one, he likens not voting with not marrying, which he says has God’s endorsement.

In choosing a spouse, we are active in selecting the candidate pool—and anyway, choosing not to marry is a decision the Bible endorses (1 Cor. 7:39–40).

In doing so, Bostick appeals to 1 Corinthians 7:39-40, which is not a text of regulative prescription, but an exception that Paul makes during a time of intense Christian persecution. The Bible’s message on marriage is clearly that “he who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Proverbs 18:22) and that a fundamental purpose of human existence is to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). This verse, cited by Bostick, is a favorite of the evangelical “same sex attracted” Eunch-class, as they apply Paul’s words to persecuted martyrs to homosexuals who think girls are icky. Liberals seem to misuse the same Scriptures over and over again.

Someone needs to inform Bostick that we are not looking for a lifelong soul mate and sexual partner. We’re looking for a president.

Acknowledging God uses imperfect people, Bostick says, “His omniscient use of imperfect people in his redemptive work is hardly comparable to me voting for a deeply flawed candidate against my better judgment.”

One wonders if Bostick’s better judgment includes allowing pagans to choose presidents rather than Christians.

If you can’t vote on election day because of the morality or immorality of a candidate, and instead choose to do nothing so that evil may win, there is a fundamental problem with your conscience. At no point in the development of the Republican form of government, or in the Democratic form of government many wrongly imagine us to live in, is it suggested that any perfect candidate will present themselves to us.

As a political scientist, Bostick is intimately familiar with the narrow margins in this upcoming election, and what it would mean to the conservative cause for Trump to lose. And that’s exactly why he’s encouraging Christians not to vote.

About Author