Abolitionists, It's OK To Vote For Trump: A Biblical Case
Abolitionists and Abolitionists+
Abortion abolitionists are Christians who hear the biblical command “You shall not murder” and take it seriously. They see that God, in His Word, strictly prohibits civil authorities from partiality in judgment and from passing iniquitous legislation that establishes oppression, and they apply these truths to the issue of abortion.
Convinced that humans are living persons from the moment of fertilization, abolitionists affirm that the preborn must have the same basic legal protections as everyone else, and anyone involved in the murder of one of these little ones must be subject to the same penalties as they would be in any other homicide case. Any abortion law that protects some preborn humans but not others and thereby fails to establish justice is not only an imperfect law but a sinful one that no Christian can faithfully countenance.
They’re right.
God, through the Bible, prohibits murder, including of the preborn (Genesis 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13; 21:22-24); requires governing authorities to establish impartial, equal justice without compromise (Deuteronomy 1:17, 16:18-20; Leviticus 19:15; Exodus 23:2-3); and forbids authorities from passing laws that enshrine injustice (Isaiah 10:1-4). All people, along with the Israelites, are commanded, “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow” (Deuteronomy 16:20). So, I count myself an abolitionist.
However, some within the abolition movement have included an additional tenet in their ideology. For that reason, I’ll refer to them shorthand as abolitionists+. They believe that Christians should never vote for governing authorities who do not intend to support laws establishing equal protection for the unborn. In other words, they deny that Christians should ever vote someone into office who will not work to abolish abortion.
Quickly, if you’re not getting Project 18:15 in your inbox each week, here’s your chance.
This tenet (which does not appear, for example, in The Norman Statement on the Abolition of Abortion) is alleged to be biblical, but I want to argue here that it goes beyond what the Bible says and fails to account for other things the Bible says. I will summarize our own historical context, describe and respond to the Bible-based arguments of the abolitionists+, present some opposing arguments of my own, and conclude with a final appeal.
Our Historical Context
Before getting into the Bible, let’s take account of our historical context to understand the relevance and urgency of this matter. We are now less than 24 hours from the conclusion of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a contest between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris.
On most issues, the rift between Trump and Harris is vast. Their records tell the story. Trump’s administration increased peace worldwide, fostered a booming American economy, and discouraged illegal immigration. The Biden-Harris administration has resulted in the opposite on every point, including the shameful Afghanistan debacle, the avoidable wars against Ukraine and Israel, significant economic problems, and millions of illegals flooding the country, nullifying American citizenship and, in some cases, committing devastating crimes. Their dangerous and morally egregious policy moves have abounded, from targeting parents for protesting school boards to pressuring social media companies to censor information, to seeking to prohibit bans on transgender athletes in school sports, and more.
On these matters, the contrast is stark. And there are many other contrasts, too many to detail here, between Trump and Harris—their policies and personalities—which mark Trump as more capable of doing more good for national and Christian interests. This is, perhaps, an understatement.
On the issue of abortion, however, both are objectively horrendous.
Harris is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in U.S. history, who says abortion is a “fundamental freedom” and promises to sign a bill creating a national right to abortion. She calls it her “first priority”! Her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz, legalized abortion up to birth in his state and ended requirements to preserve the life of infants born alive during botched abortions. There’s no doubt that Harris would love to do the same federally. She’s even indicated she would not support religious exemptions for doctors when it comes to performing abortions. As one pastor recently put it, “The Democratic Party is a demonic death cult under the power and influence of Satan,” which is “building their platform upon everything God hates,” including “the annihilation of babies in the womb…”
Trump, on the other hand, calls the Democrat position radical and says he wants to leave the decision of what to do about abortion up to the states—so much so that he would veto a national abortion ban if Congress were to pass one. Unfortunately, that’s an immoral position since we’re talking about murder.
But it’s worse than that because, despite the hands-off rhetoric, he also supports exceptions and opposes most abortion bans. The earliest ban he’s ever signaled support for is 15 weeks, by which time 96+ percent of abortions have already occurred. So, when it comes to the number of abortions he’s willing to allow, he’s almost as bad as Democrats.
He also recently said that some states’ bans are “too tough.” This is even though no state has fully criminalized abortion; mothers can murder their preborn children by pills, if not by surgery, anywhere. Those “tough” laws will be “redone,” Trump said. In other words, while no state law is strict enough from a Christian view, Trump thinks some are too strict already, and he may use his bully pulpit to push the issue in the wrong direction—albeit not as far or fast as the Democrats would.
On top of that, Trump supports in vitro fertilization (IVF), which, in most cases, is just as morally fraught as abortion, as it includes the destruction of human embryos (living human beings). He’s even said he wants the federal government to pay for IVF for families that want it.
Trump is rightly credited for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but unfortunately, that wasn’t as great of a victory as it should have been. The judges failed to extend the right to life to preborn persons per the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—a grievous moral and legal error. Since then, abortions have only increased, passing one million last year for the first time since 2012. Did Roe’s overturn result in some individual lives saved? It’s possible. But the overall number still went up, and likely far more than we know, since the data we have don’t count unrecorded chemical abortions, which remain legal in every state.
All that to say, regarding abortion, both candidates are inescapably bad. Both are pro-abortion, though Harris is more passionately so and may even extend it up to birth and beyond.
Responding to Bible-Based Arguments
In light of these dismal facts, the abolitionists+ argue that voting for either candidate is a grave moral error. Most of their public scorn has been directed toward Trump, presumably because he’s who most Christian voters are likely to vote for. The abolitionists+ sometimes seek to make their case from the Bible.
The best Bible-based arguments I’ve come across are:
Scripture institutes standards for civil magistrates much like it does for church leaders, and Trump doesn’t meet those standards.
Scripture commands us not to ally with wicked leaders, which includes Trump.
This is an Isaiah 30 moment, and voting for Trump is equivalent to trusting Egypt instead of God for deliverance.
I’ll explain and respond to each of these.
I. Standards For Civil Magistrates
Abolitionists+ claim that the Bible teaches standards for politicians, pointing to passages like Romans 13:1-7, Psalm 72, Psalm 82, Deuteronomy 16:18-20, 1 Peter 2:13-16, Exodus 18:21, and 2 Samuel 23:3. These verses present an image of how a governing authority should be and act. He should be able, God-fearing, trustworthy, and unbribable. It is incumbent upon him to reward and praise those who do good and punish those who do evil; to judge righteously; to defend the poor, needy, weak, fatherless, and afflicted from oppression, maintaining their rights and crushing their oppressors; and not to pervert justice, show partiality, or accept a bribe, but to do justice without exception in all legal matters.
They liken these characteristics and behaviors to the qualifications for pastors presented in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9. It is often understood that if a person doesn’t have the qualities outlined in these verses, he is not suitable for the office, period. If a sitting pastor were to fail in these matters, he would be disqualified and should be removed from the pastorate, perhaps permanently. The abolitionists+ think the verses above regarding civil leaders are the same kind of thing. You’re either qualified, or you’re not, and if you’re not, it’s a sin for someone to appoint you.
No counterfactuals
The abolitionists+ are correct in saying that these are “standards” for governing authorities in the sense that they are the measuring stick by which we evaluate a leader. However, their case is stretched when they suggest voters are, therefore, forbidden in any circumstance from voting for someone who doesn’t meet these standards. Why? Because the Bible simply doesn’t say that.
None of these passages address counterfactuals like “What if there are no men with these attributes available?” or “What if the men who are available have some of these attributes but not others?” For example, Deuteronomy 16:18-20 commands the appointment of “judges and officers” and then commands them, once they’re appointed, to “judge the people with righteous judgment.” What if Moses or some subsequent appointer had no righteous choices available to be judges? Should Moses have then failed to appoint any judge? Wouldn’t that make him a transgressor for disobeying this command altogether?
In God’s wisdom, perhaps, He doesn’t say to “appoint righteous judges and officers.” He says, “appoint judges and officers,” then commands them to judge righteously. The command to appoint judges would stand even in the absence of righteous candidates. Of course, it follows that the appointer should seek to appoint someone who would do the job well, but God did not burden him with a potentially impossible task. He would have had to choose from his available options.
Varying degrees of quality, none perfect
Also, presumably, since we’re talking about human beings, not every appointee would be on the same level. Even among righteous judges, some would be more righteous than others. The command is “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow” (16:20). Should we take from this that they could only appoint someone they knew would always do the right thing? They would never appoint anyone, as there is no such person!
The abolitionists+ argue they’re not looking for a perfect person. But what, then, is the standard? These verses call for perfection—perfect, uncompromising justice. Abolitionists+ may suggest that they at least want to appoint people who are more obviously disposed to do “only justice,” as opposed to someone who has promised (as Trump has) to do unjust things. But then we’re back to the issue of imperfection. The Bible does not offer minimal standards; it provides the perfect standard, which no one achieves. Logically, it’s better to choose whoever comes closest to the standard because that’s always the only choice. And you must have governing authorities, even if the available options are not high quality.
Qualification precedents
Most of the passages listed above are, in my reading, similar to Deuteronomy 16:18-20 in the sense that they describe or dictate what a governing authority should do while in power, rather than what he should be to come to power. In other words, they’re about how to do the job, not about how to get the job. That’s not an insignificant distinction.
But there is one verse among them that has direct instructions about the qualifications of appointees to a civil service: Exodus 18:21. On this occasion, Moses’ father-in-law advised him to delegate the task of judging the Israelites’ disputes to a hierarchy of chiefs—a multi-level judicial system. He recommended that Moses “look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of ten. And let them judge the people at all times” (Exodus 18:21-22a).
At this advice, Moses appointed “able men” to help him judge the people (Exodus 18:25). So also, on yet another occasion, in a verse I haven’t seen abolitionists+ mention (though they probably do somewhere), Moses commanded the people, “Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads” (Deuteronomy 1:13).
So, unlike the others, these two passages offer qualifications for those appointed. They do not take the form of universal commands in the voice of God (since they are descriptions of historical events, not commands within the law itself), but they are important precedents. We should strive to choose able, God-fearing, trustworthy, unbribable, wise, understanding, and experienced men to govern us.
But, two points to consider, which will partly echo points I’ve already made. First, do we imagine that the men Moses appointed equally met these qualifications or did not falter at any of these points? Surely there were varying degrees of ability, wisdom, etc.—which, stated differently, means there were varying degrees of inability, foolishness, etc. So, there is a standard, but there is no expectation of always meeting it. It’s the goal, not the minimum requirements.
Second, like the other verses, these precedents do not address counterfactuals. If there were no such men available for the job, should Moses have refused to delegate anything? If the only possible candidates for a role had some of these traits but not others, should the role be left vacant? No, the roles had to be filled, even if the candidates were not as good as one would hope.
Pastoral qualifications, too
By the way, this is true of pastoral qualifications, too. Consider a small church in a third-world country that has scant access to biblical training, meaning that no one is very “able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9). Should that church simply not have a pastor, or should they pick the most qualified man available—the one who is best able to teach, even if not as well as one would like?
Or, what if a sitting pastor lacks in some area of self-control, which is a qualification listed in both 2 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:8? Maybe he has something of a coffee addiction or a habit of overeating. Should he be removed from office for that, even if he is still, overall, the closer match to the standard than anyone else?
I suspect some abolitionists+ may refer to the fact that there are weightier matters of the law, as Jesus says in Matthew 23:23; some issues are less critical than others. A pastor’s coffee addiction is less significant than a politician’s acceptance of child sacrifice (abortion). That’s absolutely correct. But let’s also observe what else Jesus says in that same verse: one should attend to those matters “without neglecting the others”! Once again, the standard He presents is perfection.
So, the point still stands that, in the absence of perfect candidates (which is always the case), you must pick the best among them. The best in some scenarios will be way worse than the best in other scenarios, but they’re still the best in their scenario.
II. Allying With Wicked Leaders
Next, the abolitionists+ say that scripture commands us not to ally with wicked leaders, which includes Trump. The verse I’ve seen offered to support this claim is Psalm 94:20: “Can wicked rulers be allied with you, those who frame injustice by statute?”
The abolitionists+ apparently conclude from this that if wicked rulers cannot be allied with God, then God’s people must not ally with wicked rulers. Since voting for someone is a form of allying with him, they reason, we can’t vote for a wicked ruler. Trump is one such wicked ruler, primarily because of his abortion position.
Three things to consider.
1. It’s not about that
First, this psalm is not about that. It’s a prayer for deliverance from a person under evil leaders (which is our case, too), but it doesn't address the dilemma of having an opportunity to help choose one leader or another and having only varying degrees of evil people as options. To try to fit that scenario into this verse is really a stretch.
2. Biblical examples to the contrary
Second, there are biblical examples of godly people supporting (working with or for) ungodly rulers without a wisp of a suggestion that they were doing wrong. They supported wicked leaders, not for their evil deeds but despite them, without being considered complicit in their wickedness. Examples include Joseph with Pharaoh; Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego with Nebuchadnezzar and Darius; Obadiah with Ahab; Esther and Mordecai with Ahasuerus; and the list goes on.
Let’s look at how Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego supported Nebuchadnezzar despite his multifaceted wickedness and pride—continuing that support faithfully unless and until he required them to sin themselves. The book of Daniel describes how, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, he enlisted these talented men from Israel to be advisors (Daniel 1:1-7). They served him well and were put in charge of the entire province of Babylon (Daniel 2:48-49). Certainly, this service could be considered “allying” with Nebuchadnezzar. If voting is a form of allying, being in an administration definitely is!
However, Nebuchadnezzar was a wicked man, a violent and intemperate pagan king who destroyed God’s temple in Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:9). He relied on magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers (Daniel 2:2; 4:7). He once angrily decreed the execution of all the wise men in Babylon after the failure of only a portion of them (Daniel 2:12-15). Famously, he built a 60-cubit golden image and required his subjects to worship it or face capital punishment (Daniel 3:1-7). He did not practice righteousness or show mercy to the oppressed (Daniel 4:27), and even after a solemn divine warning, boasted proudly of his “mighty power” and “the glory of [his] majesty” (Daniel 4:28). He did all this, and that’s only what we know about. What other grave evils may he have done that were not recorded?
Still, Daniel and company supported him through their faithful service. On one occasion, when interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s bad dream through which God revealed the king’s impending humiliation, Daniel was greatly troubled by it and said, “My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies!” (Daniel 4:19). Doesn’t this response suggest an affection for the king that God was bringing under judgment? Despite Nebuchadnezzar’s godlessness, Daniel seemed to desire his success and continued reign.
Yet there were instances in which Daniel and his friends stood their ground against Nebuchadnezzar or his successors—when told to eat food that would be ceremonially unclean for them (Daniel 1:8-16), when commanded to worship the golden image (Daniel 3), and when commanded to stop praying to God (Daniel 6). At those points, at risk to their lives, they did not ally with the ruler. But until then, they could support him without being considered complicit in his sin. They only drew the line whenever they were asked to sin themselves, which implies that their general support for the ruler was not sinful.
Someone may argue that they didn’t have a choice whether or not to serve these kings. They were conscripted into this service against their will (Daniel 1:3-4). But obviously, they did have a choice because they later refused to support them when to do so would have been wrong. In those cases, the choice was between supporting them and being executed, and they were willing to be executed. So, if it were wrong to support and ally with these evil rulers whatsoever, they could have chosen not to. It wasn’t wrong.
I have the impression that some Christians, in Daniel’s position, would outright refuse to serve the pagan Nebuchadnezzar in the first place and instead take execution on day one. But then again, perhaps those Christians would never have been in Daniel’s position since he was there because of his wisdom (Daniel 1:3-7).
Someone may argue, “Yes, but those evil kings were already in power. Daniel and the rest of them were not electing them.” To that, I say, of course, they were not in a democratic system. The Bible doesn’t directly address a constitutional republic such as ours because there was no such form of government in the contexts in which Scripture was written. So, we are constrained to prayerfully discern and apply any relevant principles. Daniel and his colleagues were in an ungodly culture led by ungodly men, as we are, so surely the principle of working with the ungodly to achieve whatever good we can is applicable. That is the example they left for us. — And don’t misunderstand: by “whatever good,” I do not mean half-baked good, such as iniquitous decrees that enshrine partiality by oppressing some people to try to help others. That would not be good. So, if the ruler is doing that, participating would be wrong. But if the same ruler also does some actual good on other issues, we can follow the example of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego by working with him on those issues despite the others.
So, however one applies Psalm 94:20 and any similar verses, they must not be applied in a way that would condemn these heroes of the faith for being faithful in undesirable circumstances. They must not be applied to a presidential election in a constitutional republic in a way that willingness to work with an evil man to do good, despite other evils, is considered sinful.
3. God judges rulers on a scale, so we should too
Third, God clearly judges rulers on a scale. Throughout the books of Kings and Chronicles, it is said of each king whether he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD or did what was evil. But among those who did what was right, not all were equal. Some removed the unauthorized worship spots (high places), while others, despite being otherwise righteous, failed to remove them. So, they were all good, but some were better than others. In particular, Hezekiah and Josiah are both spoken of in superlative terms (2 Kings 18:5-6; 2 Kings 23:25).
Likewise, not all those who did what was evil in the eyes of the LORD were equal. Some were worse than others. In particular, it’s said of Omri that he “did more evil than all who were before him” (1 Kings 16:25). Then, his son Ahab after him upped the ante because it’s said of him too that he did more evil and more to provoke God than all the previous kings of Israel (1 Kings 16:30, 33). So, although the earlier kings were wicked, they were not as bad as Omri and Ahab.
In light of that, if you would permit me to indulge in some anachronisms to make a point, imagine the ancient Israelites had the option to vote between:
Ahab, who was worse than all those before him, and
Jehu, who came after Ahab and did some good things—executed the wicked Jezebel, slaughtered the prophets of Baal, etc.—but ultimately failed to “turn from the sins of Jeroboam” (2 Kings 10:31). Notice that Jeroboam, to whom Jehu is compared, came before Ahab, so we know he was not as bad as Ahab, who was worse than all those before him.
So, God judged one of these men as worse than the other. Stated differently, God preferred one over the other. If the Israelites had to put it to a vote, would it please God for them to abstain from voting, even if their abstention resulted in His least preferred candidate—the most wicked ruler in Israel’s history—coming to power? More to the point, would it displease God if the Israelites voted for the one He preferred? Not likely.
Let’s look at it from another angle. Imagine the ancient Israelites had the option to vote between:
Hezekiah, who pleased God and even removed the high places, and
Asa, who was righteous but did not remove the high places.
Would God be more pleased with a vote for Asa when Hezekiah is the alternative? Not likely. It’s reasonable to assume God would prefer the better of the two options (the most righteous / least unrighteous) since He Himself judges one to be better than the other. So, why wouldn’t the same logic apply further down on the scale? Between two options, choose the one who comes closest to God’s righteousness.
The Lord calls on us to “judge with right judgment” (John 7:24). Since He also tells us, in the case of these ancient rulers, what His judgments are, why should we not model our own judgments off of His? And what is a vote other than formally making a judgment?
III. Taking Refuge With Pharaoh
A final biblical argument some have tried to make is that we are living in an Isaiah 30 moment. In Isaiah 30, God chides His people as “stubborn children…who carry out a plan, but not mine, and who make an alliance, but not of my Spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who set out to go down to Egypt, without asking for my direction, to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt!” (vv. 1-2).
The passage says God would have given them “rest” and “strength” if they had returned to Him, but since they were “unwilling,” He declares that their “pursuers shall be swift” (vv. 15-16) and “Therefore shall the protection of Pharaoh turn to your shame, and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your humiliation” (v. 3).
The argument is that many Christians are fleeing to Egypt (Trump) to escape Assyria (Harris) when God Himself would intervene and deliver us if only we rejected both. Taking refuge with Trump is essentially a rejection of God and is likely to bring about our humiliation.
A few points show how this passage does not apply to our current situation.
1. Isaiah 30 is not intra-national
First, the Isaiah 30 situation was inter-national, not intra-national as this election is. There’s a difference between how nations deal with other nations and how a nation deals with itself. A nation can refuse to have dealings with another nation, as Israel should have done with Egypt, but no one can refuse to have dealings with his own nation—not as long as he remains its citizen. Case in point, Israel didn’t need to involve itself with Egypt and had to go out of its way to do so (the situation wasn’t a binary outcome between Egypt and Assyria), but American Christians will be involved with (affected by) the result of the U.S. election no matter what (it is a binary outcome between Republicans and Democrats). These scenarios are apples and oranges.
2. Seeking help from the wicked
Second, the passage does not prohibit every instance of seeking help from a wicked person. As John Calvin points out in his comments on this passage, “[W]eak and miserable men, especially when they are unjustly oppressed, have a right to ask assistance even from wicked persons; for it is a principle implanted in us by nature, that all human beings should willingly, and of their own accord, endeavour to assist each other.” So, Isaiah 30 doesn’t prohibit getting help from Trump, a wicked person who will, despite his wickedness, improve our nation on multiple fronts—especially considering his wickednesses are shared and surpassed by the other side, and his positive attributes are not. So, why does God fault Israel for getting help from Egypt? Next point:
3. Israel and Egypt
Third, Israel was explicitly prohibited from working with Egypt in a way that Christians are not with Trump. Calvin again: “God had strictly forbidden [Israel] to enter into any alliance or league with the Egyptians.” In Deuteronomy 17:16, God commands that Israel’s king “must not…cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’” Since God had mightily delivered them from Egypt, they could never go back.
“And if they had entered into an alliance with the Egyptians,” Calvin writes, “the remembrance of that benefit might easily have been obliterated; for they would not have been at liberty to celebrate it in such a manner as had been commanded. (Exodus 13:3, 8,14.).” This is not our case with Trump. We were not delivered from him (Biden is no Promised Land), commanded to celebrate that deliverance, and proscribed from returning.
Why Abolitionists Can Vote For Trump
To this point, I’ve responded to Bible-based arguments against voting for Trump. Now, I want to provide some arguments of my own for why it’s OK for abolitionists to vote for Trump.
Not like iniquitous decrees
The lynchpin that convinced me of abolitionism, and which I believe should convince every Christian, is Isaiah 10:1-4. It begins,
“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!”
These verses declare the sorry state of governing officials who make laws and policies that oppress people—that is, laws and policies that do injustice and rob people of their rights. These laws and policies destroy the needy, the poor, widows, and the fatherless.
Who is more fatherless than an aborted child—a child whose father has utterly abandoned him to let his mother kill him? This is a violation of a human child’s right to life. This is injustice.
So, laws and policies that allow for this practice fall neatly into the category of “iniquitous decrees.” Now, which laws do that? Answer: every abortion law on the books in the United States, including “pro-life” laws. I can say this with confidence because there is not a single state that makes it illegal for a mother to abort her preborn child. The status quo even in the states with the greatest restrictions on abortion is to include a statement in the “pro-life” law saying that abortive mothers cannot be subjected to criminal conviction and penalty.
In other words, a mother can never be punished for having an abortion. That means it’s legal for her. Even where it’s illegal for a doctor, it’s not illegal for a mother. She can legally take a pill or use some other do-it-yourself abortion method to murder her child without any legal consequence.
The problem with such a law is that, in direct violation of God’s prohibition “You shall not show partiality” (Deuteronomy 16:19), it shows partiality to mothers by shielding them from punishment for murder. That means the preborn child is not protected in the same way as everyone else. That is robbing him of his rights—which means that that law is oppressive, an iniquitous decree.
Often, pro-life laws are framed as trying to do the most good possible. The idea is that to push for full criminalization would be too unpopular to pass, so pro-life legislators instead push for some lesser measure, like a heartbeat bill (a 6-week ban). The pitch is that it’s better to have it than not to have it, because it will presumably save more babies. The problem here, again, is that it shows partiality to the older children and institutes oppression for those under six weeks old. That is an iniquitous decree. For Christians, it’s not an option.
Here’s how the passage continues, speaking directly to those who write such decrees:
“What will you do on the day of punishment, in the ruin that will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help, and where will you leave your wealth? Nothing remains but to crouch among the prisoners or fall among the slain. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still.”
So, decreeing iniquitous decrees is damnable. Writing laws that make the fatherless into prey is not an option. In our own human calculations, we can come up with all kinds of justifications for sin, but the reality is that sin must never be on the table. Whatever we do, we must not sin! That’s literally the only thing we must not do. To support such a law is to support sin. “Justice, and only justice, you shall follow,” the Lord says (Deuteronomy 16:20). So, the only abortion law that Christians are at liberty to support (and must support) is the one that criminalizes abortion, period. (This does not include life-saving operations on the mother, which are not abortions.)
Now, some readers will think the same argument applies to voting for an evil candidate. If it’s wrong to support an unjust law, isn’t it wrong to support an unjust person? Here’s why, in addition to my previous arguments, I believe the answer is “no”:
1. Unlike a person, a law can be entirely just.
Solomon writes, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Paul quotes the Psalms when he agrees, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10–11).
Jesus Himself says flatly, “No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18).
So, kings, prophets, apostles, and the Lord Himself agree: all of us are morally abhorrent and reprehensible before a holy God. No one is entirely just. One can do justice, but no one will do justice all the time. As James writes, “For we all stumble in many ways” (James 3:2).
A law, on the other hand, can be entirely just. All it has to do is criminalize something according to God’s Word. Once it’s written correctly, the law doesn’t need to change. It sits there on the books, entirely and unfalteringly just. So, since a law is able to do “only justice,” but a person is not, there’s a difference. We mustn’t support unjust laws, but we have no choice but to support, at best, a sometimes unjust person.
The point here is that laws and people are two different categories. Voting for a law and voting for a person are not equivalent.
2. Supporting a leader is not the same as supporting everything a leader does.
This is seen plainly in the biblical examples discussed above, like Daniel. It’s possible to support a governing authority generally without supporting his every detail.
Donald Trump knows this, by the way. At times, he and his surrogates have expressed an understanding that not everyone who votes for him agrees with everything he does. So, there is no reason to think a vote for Trump is a cartblanc approval of everything he will do. Instead, it’s simply saying you prefer him over Kamala Harris.
The Bible does not tie our hands from choosing between the lesser of two evil leaders when there is no realistic alternative. Notice, I didn’t say “the lesser of two evils.” I said “the lesser of two evil leaders.” Essentially, my entire argument is that supporting an evil leader is not always evil. Context matters. So, while some argue against voting for a flawed candidate by saying we must not “do evil that good may come” (Romans 3:8), I’m arguing that it’s not necessarily evil to vote for a flawed candidate.
That said, I think it’s important to clarify, if possible, what we do not support and make our voice heard in opposition to Trump’s abortion position (more on that later). Under no circumstance can we work with the ungodly to do what is iniquitous, even as we work with them on other matters.
For these reasons, I can and do stand with abolitionists against incrementalist or regulative compromise in legislation. The Bible is clear about this: writing laws like that—laws that establish oppression—is sinful and brings a curse on the writer. We must not support such laws; we must oppose them.
But the Bible simply does not go so far as to say you can never support the “writer of oppression” himself for other reasons. As we’ve seen, the Bible gives us godly examples of that. Maybe there’s a reason for this. Maybe God knows that, in our messy and fallen world, there are times when strategy comes into play, and wicked leaders can be used for good purposes.
We are called to be innocent as doves and wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16). Voting for Trump is not a mark against our innocence, but sitting the election out is a mark against our wisdom. Supporting an iniquitous decree is a no-go, but supporting an iniquitous person has its place.
A Rash Vow
The commitment of the abolitionists+ to abstain from voting for Trump reminds me of King Saul’s rash vow when he pronounced a curse on anyone who would eat food before they defeated the Philistines at Michmash (1 Samuel 14). The result: the army grew faint, and the victory was not great. Moreover, the one who led them to victory was the one who hadn’t heard the curse, ate, and was re-energized for the fight—Saul’s son, Jonathan.
A Kamala Harris presidency would change this nation, probably irreversibly. It would advance us toward war, economic disaster, censorship, and more, with the presumable goal of communism. If you’re willing to consign yourself (and the entire nation with you) to the ravages of a Kamala Harris presidency, which can only make the fight to abolish abortion more difficult, rather than take advantage of what respite will come with a Trump presidency, which will allow us to focus our energies on the fight with fewer obstacles and distractions, perhaps Jonathan would say of you as he did of his father: “My father has troubled the land” (1 Samuel 14:30).
In some cases, there seems to be a devil-may-care attitude about troubling the land. An abolitionist+ once told me, “God will appoint whomever He wants for His reasons - maybe judgment.” While that’s true, it’s no excuse not to vote. Would you beckon God’s judgment by your inaction? As a friend of mine points out, Christians like this often bring persecution on themselves, not to mention everyone else. But consider: maybe God would use your vote as a means of His mercy to extend our grace period and give us another chance to kick the can of judgment further down the road by way of repentance. Abolitionists+ talk as though abstaining from voting is itself an act of repentance. It’s not. It’s an act of imprudence, if not a dereliction of duty. Suffrage (the right to vote) is a stewardship. “Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2). Seeing as we have been given this right, how can we abandon the responsibility that comes with it?
Whether it be judgment or mercy, may God’s will be done—but may we not usher in judgment by our passivity.
A Final Appeal
I’ve aimed to demonstrate that the Bible passages some abolitionists use to argue for abstaining from the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election do not support their claims. They make other arguments, too—pragmatic or strategic—which I also disagree with but cannot address here. Anyway, those arguments wouldn’t matter if the Bible outright forbade voting for Trump. If the Bible were to say it, that would settle it. As I’ve shown, the Bible doesn’t say it.
So, given that voting for Trump is permissible, there is only one question you have to answer: is Trump preferable to Harris?
This election is a binary outcome: Trump-Vance or Harris-Walz. When neither ticket aligns with your values on such a consequential matter as defending life, either one will be your adversary. In the election, you get to cast your vote for who you prefer to go toe-to-toe with.
So, who would you prefer to fight with about abortion? Trump or Harris?
The one who says he won’t criminalize it federally, or the one who says she will legalize it federally?
The one who will work against other injustices, improve other aspects of American life, and help resolve conflicts around the world, or the one who has multiplied those injustices, ushered in those conflicts, and purveyed over the decay of Americans’ welfare and security?
The one who has demonstrated courage under fire, business and street savvy, and perseverance in the face of endless slander, among other admirable traits, or the one who has none of these characteristics, making her anything but leader material?
The one who brings with him the likes of Elon Musk to improve government spending and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to clean up the medical industry, or the one who brings with her a shadowy army of nameless puppet masters to trample over the rights of the people in a ploy to secure their own power?
The one who has at least some godly people in his proximity, or the one who apparently has no godly influences at all?
One of these is a preferable enemy to have. The choice is clear. A Trump administration will quash a number of other evils, allowing us to focus our attention on the fight against abortion.
The proverb says, “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11). This call is not exclusively about saving the preborn. It also includes those who are victimized by illegal “immigrants” and drugs flowing over the open border. It includes those whose livelihoods are lost by destructive economic policy. It includes children who are manipulated, sterilized, and mutilated through cross-sex hormones and transgender surgeries. It includes female athletes who are at risk when coerced to play sports with men. It includes all the victims of Orwell’s proverbial face-stomping boot—the totalitarian tyranny of communism. There are many people who need rescuing!
Please, for the love of your neighbors, go vote for Trump. The preborn may not be better off either way, but many others will be.
Petition
Now, if you vote for Trump as I hope you do, please don’t only vote for Trump. We must attend to the weightier matters of the law that he does not. Vote for Trump and then be ready to fight him tooth and nail on the issue of abortion.
When you fill out that bubble on the ballot, consider yourself to be signing a solemn pledge that you will fight for the abolition of abortion because you have to make up for what he lacks in that area, and not only lacks but may in fact actively push in the wrong direction. Recognize that when you vote for Trump, you are making the wisest choice, but you are also voting for an opponent on this.
If he wins, that doesn’t mean you can relax. Take one breath of relief for the good it will do and then set your face like flint against the monumental evils we still face, of which he is a part. We will still be a nation under judgment. Just as not voting for Trump is not an act of repentance, voting for him is not either. He is no savior. At best, it will be a mercy from God giving us reprieve on some fronts to allow us more time.
But notice: voting is only one political mechanism for change, and as important as it is, our political engagement must not stop there. Christians need to become much more active in the interim between elections, pressuring politicians and changing the cultural conversation on abortion, among other matters. There are many ways to do this.
To that end, I am writing a statement that, if Trump wins, I would like to publish as a petition for him to reconsider his position on abortion. All Christians seeking the abolition of abortion, whether or not they voted for Trump, should be able to get behind this. If you’re interested in receiving updates about that, please drop your email address below.
Whether we see eye to eye on everything or not, let us stand together and fight to abolish abortion for the glory of God.
Go vote!