Does Loving Your Neighbor Require You to Vote?
One Christian philosopher who has most influenced my thinking is Dr. David Baggett. Few scholars have done more to defend the Moral Argument for God’s existence. His work has profoundly shaped my own thinking about morality, human dignity, and libertarian freedom, and I remain deeply grateful for his influence—and, more importantly, his friendship.
For that reason, I was genuinely surprised when David and his wife, MaryBeth, recently announced that they no longer identify as evangelical Christians. Their explanation was centered upon what they regard as the unhealthy political trajectory of modern evangelicalism. In their view, too many evangelicals have allowed politics to eclipse discipleship, confusing the Kingdom of God with partisan power and sacrificing Christian witness in the process of casting votes for Republicans.
After reading David’s reflections, I became convinced that our disagreement is not fundamentally about Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or even evangelicalism itself.
Our disagreement concerns a prior theological question: What does Christ’s command to love our neighbors require of Christians who possess lawful political influence?
That question changes everything.
My political convictions have always been drawn from systematic theology. At FreeThinking Ministries, our mission is to “reason together” (Isa. 1:18) by applying logic and sound theology to all aspects of life. Citizenship and voting are both aspects of life. If Christ is Lord over every area of life, then He must also be Lord over how Christians exercise the political stewardship He has entrusted to them.
I believe the Law of Christ provides a clear answer.
The Political Stewardship Argument
My political convictions are not my starting point. They are the conclusion of what I call the Political Stewardship Argument (PSA).
Before explaining the argument, let me clarify what it is not. This is not a utilitarian argument claiming that Christians should simply maximize desirable political outcomes or justify whatever means produce the greatest social good. The PSA begins with Christ’s command rather than with political consequences. It begins with the moral obligation Christ places upon His followers to love their neighbors.
Throughout this essay, I intentionally speak of “Christ’s followers” rather than merely “Christians,” because the argument concerns discipleship. The question is not simply what those bearing the Christian name should believe, but how those who claim to follow Jesus ought to obey His commands in every sphere of life.
Christ commands His followers to love their neighbors as themselves (Matt. 22:37–40; John 13:34–35; cf. Gal. 5:14). Biblical love, however, is not merely an emotion or an expression of goodwill. To love one’s neighbor is to seek his or her objective good. Jesus illustrates this vividly in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37). Paul tells us that “love does no wrong to a neighbor” (Rom. 13:10), and John commands Christ’s followers to love “in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18). Thus, followers of Christ have a moral obligation to seek the objective good of their neighbors.
Scripture also teaches that God entrusts His followers with various stewardship responsibilities and expects those stewardship responsibilities to be exercised faithfully (1 Cor. 4:1–2; 1 Pet. 4:10; cf. Matt. 25:14–30). Jesus repeatedly teaches that what has been entrusted to us carries corresponding responsibility: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required” (Luke 12:48). Faithful discipleship therefore requires bringing what God has entrusted to us under the lordship of Christ and exercising it in obedience to His commands.
For those of us living in a constitutional democratic republic, citizenship includes another genuine stewardship: lawful political influence over public affairs. Unlike subjects under many other governments throughout history, US citizens can vote, petition, persuade, campaign, protest, lobby, serve in public office, and use their voices to influence their communities and government. That influence may be limited, but it is real, and its exercise foreseeably affects the objective good of our neighbors. Indeed, Romans 13:1–10 connects God’s purposes for civil government—including promoting good and restraining evil—with the command to love one’s neighbor. Jeremiah similarly instructed God’s people living in exile to “seek the welfare of the city” in which God had placed them (Jer. 29:7).
These biblical principles converge on a straightforward conclusion: followers of Christ ought to exercise their political stewardship in obedience to Christ’s command to love their neighbors by seeking their objective good. Political stewardship is therefore one application of the Law of Christ.
With the Political Stewardship Argument in place, it follows that a follower of Christ cannot consistently claim to love his or her neighbor while treating political stewardship as morally irrelevant. Faithful discipleship requires bringing every stewardship—including citizenship—under the lordship of Christ.
The PSA does not, by itself, determine which candidate or policy Christ’s followers must support. That requires prudence, factual knowledge, moral reasoning, and careful consideration of foreseeable consequences. Rather, the PSA establishes the governing principle: our political influence is not exempt from the Law of Christ.
Voting is one important expression of that stewardship, but it is not the only one. Christ’s followers can also use their voices, their influence, and other lawful means entrusted to them to seek the objective good of their neighbors. In a constitutional democratic republic, every vote represents one opportunity to exercise that stewardship. Our individual influence may be limited, but it is real. Millions of individual acts of political stewardship collectively shape the culture and laws under which our neighbors live.
Therefore, Christ’s followers ought to use their political influence—including their votes—to seek the objective good of their neighbors by promoting what is good and opposing what foreseeably threatens them.
Love Seeks the Objective Good of Others
Jesus summarized the moral law in two commands: love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37–40). That naturally raises an important question: What does it actually mean to love our neighbors?
Scripture never reduces love to mere feelings. Biblical love is active—love is a verb. It seeks another person’s genuine good.
Jesus illustrates this beautifully in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan did not merely feel compassion. He acted. He bandaged wounds, paid expenses, sacrificed his own resources, and ensured another person’s flourishing. Likewise, the Apostle John commands us not merely to love “in word or talk but in deed and in truth” (1 John 3:18).
Biblical love, therefore, is not a mere emotion. It is an active commitment to seek the objective good of others. Once we recognize that Christians living in constitutional democratic republics possess genuine political influence, that principle naturally extends into the realm of citizenship. Because citizens lawfully participate in shaping public policy through voting and other civic responsibilities, citizenship itself becomes one of the stewardship responsibilities through which Christians obey Christ’s command to love their neighbors.
Citizenship Is a Facet of Stewardship
Throughout Scripture, God entrusts His people with responsibilities and then holds them accountable for how they exercise those responsibilities. Jesus’ Parable of the Talents vividly illustrates this principle of stewardship (Matt. 25:14–30). The issue is not merely what the servants possess, but whether they faithfully use what their master has entrusted to them.
The same principle applies to citizenship.
The early Christians living under Nero possessed virtually no lawful political influence. Most Americans, however, possess extraordinary political influence that many take for granted. We vote on public officials, petition our government, advocate publicly, and enjoy freedoms of speech and assembly that much of church history never experienced.
Those opportunities are genuine stewardship responsibilities entrusted to us by God. Thus, they ought to be exercised according to His moral purposes. Because many political decisions profoundly affect whether our neighbors flourish or suffer, political stewardship naturally becomes one of the ways Christians obey—or fail to obey—the second greatest commandment.
Politics Is Not the Object of Our Love
At this point, some Christians become nervous. Has politics become our religion? Have elections replaced the gospel? Absolutely not. Politics is not the object of our love. Our neighbor is.
Christ remains supreme. His Kingdom remains our highest allegiance. The gospel alone reconciles sinners to God and builds Christ’s Church. Politics can accomplish none of those things.
Nevertheless, politics profoundly affects whether our neighbors flourish or suffer. Public policy protects, or fails to protect, the unborn. It strengthens, or weakens, the family. It preserves, or suppresses, religious liberty and other objective human rights. It rewards justice, or encourages injustice.
This is not mere politics; these are issues of objective morality concerning real image-bearers of God.
Properly ordered love therefore rejects two equal and opposite errors. One is political idolatry, making politics our ultimate hope. The other is political indifference, pretending that our political stewardship has no moral significance. Christian discipleship requires neither. It requires faithful stewardship under the Lordship of Christ.
Properly ordered love therefore rejects two equal and opposite errors.
One is political idolatry, treating politics as our ultimate hope.
The other is political indifference, treating politics like it’s morally insignificant.
Prudence Is Not Fear
One objection I often hear, also raised by Baggett in his essay, is that Christians who become politically engaged are simply motivated by fear. We are warned not to be “fearmongers” or to allow anxiety about cultural decline to eclipse our trust in God’s sovereignty (Matt. 6:25-26; Phil. 4:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:7; John 14:27).
Christians should never be governed by fear. We know that Christ reigns, His Kingdom cannot fail, and nothing can separate us from the love of God. Our hope has never rested in elections, political parties, or earthly rulers.
But rejecting fear is not the same thing as rejecting prudence.
Scripture repeatedly commends wisdom that recognizes danger before it arrives. Proverbs 22:3 teaches,
“The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.”
The proverb is repeated almost verbatim in Proverbs 27:12, underscoring its importance. The contrast is between prudent people and foolish people.
The prudent person recognizes foreseeable dangers and takes appropriate action. The simple (foolish) person ignores those dangers and suffers.
This principle applies far beyond personal safety. Parents prudently install smoke detectors because they recognize the danger of fire. They buckle their children into car seats because they recognize the danger of collisions. They lock their doors at night because they recognize the possibility of theft. None of these actions demonstrates a lack of faith in God or “living in fear.”
Political stewardship is no different.
The PSA does not, by itself, determine which candidate or policy Christians must support. Rather, it establishes that Christians have a moral obligation to exercise political stewardship in obedience to Christ. Prudence is then required to evaluate particular policies and candidates in light of that obligation. Christians may disagree about some empirical questions or prudential judgments, but they should not conclude that political stewardship itself is morally optional.
If public policies foreseeably protect—or endanger—our neighbors, then Christians ought to care about those policies. To recognize that many policies advanced by the Left threaten innocent human life, undermine the family, restrict religious liberty, or erode other objective goods is not fearmongering. It is an attempt to exercise prudent stewardship over the influence God has entrusted to us.
We are called to make the best judgments we can with the knowledge God has given us, always seeking the objective good of our neighbors.
The alternative is not greater spirituality. It’s indifference. It’s selfishness. It’s sin.
Christians are not called to ignore foreseeable dangers because “God is in control.” The same sovereign God who rules history also commands us to love our neighbors through wise and faithful stewardship. Recognizing objective dangers is not fearmongering; it is biblical prudence. Ignoring them is not compassion—it’s folly.
Christians should not ignore foreseeable dangers because “God is in control.”
The same sovereign God who rules history also commands us to love our neighbors.
through wise and faithful stewardship.
A Challenge
Whether you ultimately agree with my political conclusions is not my first concern. My first concern is the reasoning that leads to them.
Does the PSA succeed? If not, where does the reasoning go wrong? Do Christ’s followers have an obligation to seek the objective good of their neighbors? Does faithful discipleship require us to exercise what God has entrusted to us in obedience to Christ? And if citizenship gives us genuine political influence that foreseeably affects our neighbors, why should that influence be exempt from the Law of Christ?
If these biblical principles are true, then Christ’s followers should allow the Law of Christ—not partisan instinct—to govern every stewardship responsibility God has entrusted to them, including the stewardship of citizenship.
That has been the foundation of my political thinking for decades. I did not begin with Donald Trump. I did not begin with the Republican Party. I began with the risen Jesus Christ. From Christ I moved to the Law of Christ. From the Law of Christ to love of neighbor. From love of neighbor to stewardship. And from stewardship to political responsibility.
Everything else follows from there.
David and MaryBeth’s decision to step away from evangelicalism has prompted many Christians to ask whether evangelicalism itself has fundamentally changed. I am not persuaded that it has.
I do not believe it is fair to conclude that evangelicalism has “lost its way” simply because many evangelicals reach different prudential conclusions than David does as they seek to apply Christ’s command to love and protect their neighbors.
For my part, I believe those prudential judgments rightly lead Christians to oppose policies advanced by the modern Democrat Party that threaten unborn human life, weaken the family, undermine religious liberty, fail to protect our borders, and erode other objective goods.
Indeed, if the reasoning of the PSA is correct, then what David sees as evidence that evangelicalism has changed, I see as evidence that many evangelicals are striving to apply the Law of Christ more consistently. Evangelicals have always insisted that Jesus is Lord over every area of life. Citizenship is one of those areas.
That’s why I remain an evangelical.
Editor’s Note: Readers interested in a much fuller treatment—including a detailed interaction with David Baggett’s reflections, a defense of the argument’s central claims, and applications to contemporary American politics—can read the complete essay at FreeThinking Ministries.
Recommended Resources:
Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )[Text Wrapping Break][Text Wrapping Break]Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
(The FreeThinking Theist) Tim pursued his undergraduate studies at the University of Nebraska-Kearney (B.A. 1997) and after working in full-time ministry for several years went on to attain his graduate degree from Biola University (M.A. 2014). Tim was recently accepted at North West University to pursue his Ph.D. in systematic theology with a focus on metaphysics.
