20 Biblical Reasons Why Evangelicals Should Vote Republican in 2020

JOIN MY EMAIL LIST FOR CONTENT UPDATES

Introduction

If you are an evangelical republican in the United States, you likely feel like you are living in a political and cultural twilight zone. A myriad of voices within and outside evangelicalism are either hammering your head or needling your heart for voting for Trump. Accusations take various forms: If you’re an Evangelical who votes Republican, then you must be a white, power-hungry nationalist, or you must be a heartless racist, or you must be a paranoid bigot, or you must be a hollow-headed crowd follower. It seems as if one thing isn’t possible: that you can be a big-hearted, sharp-minded, good-humored, Bible-centered Evangelical who casts a ballot for Trump and Pence.

I think it’s possible, and I have 20 reasons why.

But before I delve into each reason, I think it’s important to review five erroneous Evangelical responses to the 2020 election, the biblical response to the 2020 election, the four pillars that Evangelicals stand upon, and how Progressive ideology supplants those four pillars. The 20 reasons will be clearer if I address those topics first—even though I can just barely touch each topic for the sake of space.

In short, I contend that the Progressive ideology that has become the driving force of the Democratic party opposes, in extreme ways, biblical truth and will cause immense harm to society in measure with the power it gains. Conservative ideology that is the driving force behind the Republican party stands closer to biblical truth and is more likely to promote human flourishing in measure with the power it gains.

Summary

Five Erroneous Evangelical Responses

Evangelicals shouldn’t fight in a cultural or political war to win.
Both political parties are equally morally unacceptable and shouldn’t receive a vote.
Both political parties are equally morally acceptable and can be chosen on preference.
Trump is a godly gentleman and political messiah for Evangelicals.
Evangelicals just need to hush and stop making this election such a big deal.

The Biblical Response

Voting is a privilege and divine mandate based on our inherent identity as image-bearing representatives of God on earth. Both parties are not morally equivalent. Both parties will not produce a morally equal outcome in government and society. We have the responsibility to do due diligence to determine which party is better morally, philosophically, and practically, and then vote based on conviction. Even if both parties are undesirable, we must do the hard work, pray, and vote with courage and faith.

Four Pillars of Evangelicalism Vs. Progressivism

All people need and seek perspective, transcendence, hope, and purpose. Everyone automatically answers these personal questions. Their answers shape the course of their lives.

Evangelicals establish their ultimate source of perspective, transcendence, hope, and purpose on the following pillars:

Perspective: The Bible is the authoritative source of information for truth about God, life, and this world.
Transcendence: Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection holds the key to fix humanity’s problem by connecting us, through faith in Him, with the true source of life—God.
Hope: Each person requires a supernatural, internal, spiritual, and moral transformation from God’s Spirit to receive and benefit from the true source of life.
Purpose: Participants in that new life enjoy God, express God’s nature, and extend the good news of Jesus to all who haven’t heard.

Progressive ideology supplants each of these pillars with opposing answers:

Perspective: An amalgam of evolutionistic, scientistic, Marxist, and pragmatistic ideas authoritatively interprets all of life.
Transcendence: Our connection to society and government satisfactorily and supremely connects us with something greater than ourselves.
Hope: A powerful government can right all the wrongs by restructuring society.
Purpose: One must participate in and support the government’s fight to right all those wrongs.

20 Biblical Reasons to Vote for Republicans against Democrats

The Conservative ideology driving the Republican party stands closer to the Bible than the Progressive ideology driving the Democratic party because Conservative ideology aligns more closely with the following biblical truths:

God authorizes certain inalienable human rights, not the government.
God explains human history, not Charles Darwin.
Human nature is essentially defined and fixed, not essentially malleable.
Human perfectibility depends upon God, not upon government.
Utopia requires God’s intervention, not governmental restructuring.
Good governing flows first from justice and morality, not scientistic expertise.
Humans are morally corrupt, not morally good or neutral.
Political power should be carefully stewarded, not unprincipledly wielded.
People believe truth for truth’s sake, not truth for mere power’s sake.
Moral and immoral actions explain the nature of society, not merely class struggles.
Peace must come through strength, not appeasement.
Historians must unfold the past first, not shape the future.
Journalists should relay the facts first, not aim for change.
Jurists must adjudicate based on law, not on personal preference or values.
Our souls belong to God, not to society.
Government should incentivize effort and ingenuity, not enable immoral or unwise behavior through handouts.
Government owes its citizens first, not foreigners or foreign nations.
Government should ensure justice for all, not restructure society for some.
Life starts in the womb, not out.
God condemns abuse of political power first, not personal immorality.

Five Erroneous Evangelical Responses to the 2020 Election

Because of the emotional hostility, moral discomfort, and sheer complexity that surrounds the election in general, some Evangelicals have sought to give thoughtful and biblical responses to the election. The first three responses deal specifically with views argued by Andy Stanley, John Piper, and Tim Keller. I appreciate the ministries of each of these men and have benefited immensely from them in many ways. I revere them and am happy to recant and apologize if I have misrepresented their views. I actually hope I have misrepresented their views because I believe each of them have articulated a sub-biblical response to the 2020 election. The two other views I mention are more general and are essentially unbiblical.

Evangelicals Shouldn’t Fight in a Cultural or Political War to Win

Andy Stanley argued that Christians should not engage in an all-out fight to win a cultural or political war for personal gain. Specifically, he was defending North Point Church’s call to suspend worship gatherings for the rest of the year to ensure they do not contribute to spreading COVID-19. He argued that it was Christlike to relinquish their right to conduct worship services in order to protect the health and safety of their surrounding community.

He based his argument on Philippians 2:6–8 where Paul enjoined believers to have the mind of Christ who did not cling to his divine identity but embraced the identity of a servant to the point of death on a cross. In other words, Jesus came to serve and not be served (Mark 10:45); Jesus did not come to fight and win a culture war for His own good. Stanley propounded that Christians don’t fight a cultural or political war to win—at least for personal gain. Christians should give up their right to fight like Jesus did and, instead, fight for the rights of others.

For his church, it seems like a noble decision so long as believers continue to meet regularly for worship in some capacity (Hebrews 10:25) even if it’s not everyone in one place. I believe that’s what they’re doing. Fantastic. Praise God! I fear, however, that Stanley’s general implication creates the wrong impression—that we should not engage in culture or political wars, or that we should do so lackadaisically. Or, at the very least, Andy Stanley left hearers with a biblically muddled and overly simplistic approach to the general 2020 cultural and political situation in the United States. Perhaps I misunderstood him. If I didn’t, I believe his argument is off.

First, Paul argued in Philippians 2:6–11 specifically that Christians should embrace an attitude of humility and look out for others needs before their own within the church community. By extension, of course, Christians should practice the same in their families, communities, and nations. But Christians should not, however, relinquish any form of noble struggle against another when that struggle is for a moral cause. Christians should engage in cultural and political wars so long as the aim of their struggle produces a better cause than the opposing party’s cause and so long as they engage that struggle with integrity, charity, justice, reason, and truth.

Second, Paul used his civic privilege, as a Roman citizen, to advance the purposes of the Gospel or at least to prevent any hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. Christians do well to follow in his footsteps—not merely for personal gain, but for Kingdom purposes. Complimentary to these Kingdom purposes are basic, divinely endowed societal qualities, worthy of every society’s pursuit, that foster human flourishing. These qualities include righteousness, peace, happiness, justice, truth, etc. Christians have the imperative from God to foster these qualities in their community at least as a secondary goal behind the spread and cultivation of the Gospel.

The current political and cultural “wars,” if you want to call them wars, involve moral matters as well as those other divinely endowed qualities that foster human flourishing. Therefore, Christians should fight in the right way in the cultural and political wars to win them because it will lead to the good of their society in general. Bad people and bad causes triumph when good people do nothing.

Both Political Parties Are Equally Morally Unacceptable and Shouldn’t Receive a Vote

Dr. John Piper argued that, for all practical purposes, both the Republican and Democratic parties are equally irredeemable and, therefore, he will likely not vote for either presidential candidate in 2020. Trump’s individual arrogance leads to death that is just as nationally and morally detrimental as the Democratic party’s tsunamic support of abortion. Piper believes that siding with King Jesus makes him side against both parties of death. That is where his faith has taken him and he does not think, necessarily, that all should go there. Praise to Piper for talking about these political matters! But by virtue of publishing his thoughts, he has engaged in persuasion with the implied aim of having other Christians take his position.

I believe he is wrong and pray he’ll reconsider his decision before election day.

First, Piper believes Trump’s personal arrogance has saturated and will continue to saturate the Republican party and his supporters should he get reelected. God hates arrogance. God judges arrogance. Arrogance leads to stupid and immoral decisions. Of course, Piper’s biblically accurate here—and his numerous Bible references support that accuracy. But Trump’s decision to act arrogantly doesn’t nullify the personal agency of those around him and those who support him. Believers like Mike Pence and Kayleigh McEnany, who work very closely with Trump, appear to walk the fine line of supporting Trump while upholding humility and other godly virtues. Egypt and Babylon and Persia would likely have suffered at a greater level from the arrogance of Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Ahasuerus were it not for the godly, humble political involvement of Joseph, Daniel, and Esther. Surely, we’re allowed to speculate that these Old Testament figures were put in less-than-desirable moral situations where they had to choose the lesser of two evils. They made the tough decision and moved forward with faith in God. Otherwise, they would not have kept their positions.

Evangelicals should not avoid engaging in politics simply because it feels morally messy. Many Trump supporters have chosen against his arrogance and have publicly condemned it. Plus, Trump’s arrogance leads to the lesser of the evils of arrogance. He boasts in himself, but when it comes to making decisions, he’s open to the advice and opinion of others—at least according to those who work with him. That behavior actually demonstrates humility. On the flipside, the whole avalanche of the Democratic party has already activated their collective agency by deciding to fight for abortion. I find it difficult to believe that one man will influence an entire party at the same level of the entire already-abortion-approving ethos of the Democratic party.

Second, while political involvement isn’t our primary prerogative, it is still our prerogative by virtue of our divinely given identity as image bearers of the Most High. Evangelicals cannot choose to not represent heaven on earth (Genesis 1–2; Colossians 3). God has made all humans as such. As a heavenly representative, we’re called to steward our power and influence such that the ways of God unfold upon the earth. Our transformation in Christ through the Spirit helps us fulfill that identity in the current order of this world. Not to act is to abscond that mandate. Voting is a tremendous privilege and stewardship that God has given to Evangelicals living in the United States in 2020.

It is naively simplistic and, therefore, false to assume that both political parties are equally evil. We must do the hard work of study, reflection, and prayer in order to decide and act on what we believe best achieves a better vision for human flourishing according to what we read in God’s Word.

Third, God calls us to do the hard work of living by taking risks of faith for Him. Jesus told a parable in Matthew 25:14–30 that commended those who received money, invested it, and multiplied it for their master. Jesus condemned the one who received money, buried it because he didn’t want to risk losing it, and then returned it to his master with nothing else to show for it. Specifically, I take Jesus to refer to our stewardship of all within our influence to advance the Gospel. We harness our time, energy, and resources to advance the Kingdom. I believe political involvement for the sake of effecting good to be a natural implication of Jesus’s parable. By not voting, we burry what God had stewarded to us. We’re called to be shrewd and courageous upon this earth.

Pastor-theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, when reflecting upon his decision to join the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler, said we must be more focused upon doing the will of God instead of not sinning. Not killing Hitler would have been morally worse than doing nothing to let him continue his destruction. Bonhoeffer was in a highly morally compromising position. But he had to do the hard thing through faith in Christ. Thankfully, in no way are we in a situation like Bonhoeffer’s. All we have to do is vote and vote we must do.

God calls us to do the hard thing, to get involved in the messiness of the world for the good of the world. Occasionally, we have to get distracted with unpleasant affairs like politics—even for months or years—in order to preserve or foster the advancement of the Gospel in the years to come. Sometimes, we have to stop praying to change a diaper. That’s because we’re human. God approves of such responsibilities because he made us as such.

At the very least, Evangelicals must determine which party will cause more good for the advancement of the Gospel and for our society. Then vote.

Both Political Parties Are Equally Morally Acceptable So Evangelicals Can Vote on Preference

Dr. Timothy Keller rightly argued in his New York Times opinion that Christians do not neatly fit within our two party political system. We’re Evangelical first. Political, second. From what I have heard, Keller prefers to withhold his own personal political viewpoints—especially when he was a pastor. He rightly saw the troubles that could come should a church align too closely with one party of the other. Also, he approaches the two parties from his typical objective, academic tone to bring out the positives of both sides to show that Christians who espouse each are not crazy or evil.

I believe Keller is flawed in his thinking on this subject.

In his New York Times opinion, it feels as if Timothy Keller is inviting a stranger (i.e., non-believers) into a very personal family discussion (i.e., the church). Like he’s trying to commend Christianity to non-believers in general by arguing for the rational and moral legitimacy of both political sides—on matters of government size, economic system, poverty alleviation. I finished the article with the impression that we arrive at our political stance in the same way we arrive at our decision to eat Mexican food over Italian. Like our political decision is based exclusively on personal taste and not even upon what’s practical, much less moral. Perhaps I’m misreading him.

If I’m not misreading him, Keller is arguing that both parties are equally morally and practically acceptable.

Keller errs by over intellectualizing politics and, therefore, dehumanizes it. The arena of politics involves taste, yes, but more so it involves pragmatics and morality because it is a human endeavor. Evangelicals have very clear stances on matters of morality. While it’s necessary to think through all the issues, at some point we have to stop and act with moral conviction. I appreciate Keller’s sensitivity to both sides. He falls in line with missionary-theologian Lesslie Newbigin who believed that churches should do their best to stay out of taking-sides when it comes to certain cultural, political issues. That stance seems prudent. But Newbigin also said there comes a time when the issues become so clear as to what’s right and wrong, what’s moral and immoral, that the church must speak and act for what’s right and moral and speak out against those who support what’s wrong and immoral.

I believe we live in a time such as that. The cultural and political climate has reached deeply beyond the realms of practicality into the realms of morality. Both parties are not morally or biblically viable. The church cannot equally applaud both parties. Churches should speak clearly and forcefully on moral matters against both parties, if necessary, where they fall short. In doing so, the church embraces her identity as a colony of heaven present in the world for the good of the world. By not working as a moral agent for the good of our nation, Evangelical churches seek to become something other than what they are.

Trump is Godly Gentleman and Political Messiah for Evangelicals

Stanley, Piper, and Keller all put forward significant, biblical truths that are important for Evangelicals to remember. From my limited perspective, I simply think they are less right than they could be.

This fourth position, however, is just flat out wrong. Some Evangelicals have gone so far as to praise Trump into the heavenlies and hang the existence of Christianity in America on this one man. The all-or-nothing mentality has trapped this group into placing Trump in the “all” bucket. First, I’m aware of little evidence that Trump understands the Gospel. I hope he is a Christ-follower, but he does not appear to be one. If not, I hope he becomes a born-again Christian. Second, God is sovereign. If Trump doesn’t get reelected, then perhaps the church in the present will flourish more than if he was reelected. We won’t know. We can only act in the present with the knowledge we have in the faith God has given us. For now, the historical verdict is still open and it appears that Trump offers more for the good of our nation and humanity in general than Biden. Evangelicals should justly labor to create the outcome that appears right to us with our hands open to receive the outcome God will give. In all cases, we submit ourselves to God in faith.

Evangelicals Just Need to Hush and Stop Making this Election Such a Big Deal

I’m saddened by those within the Evangelical household who discourage and condescend other members for voicing their opinion—even if that opinion is inarticulate and overly simplified. These reactionaries are trying to stay out of the courageous position of putting forward their convictions while, at the same time, castigating those who are making their beliefs known. These naysayers are not working to build up their house into a biblically grounded, spiritually strong fortress, but are tossing stones through windows and walls by combating their own family. Just because one is less articulate doesn’t mean they are stupid. Instead, those who are more articulate should assist and encourage those who aren’t in a way that builds up, not in a way that tears down.

God calls Christians to speak the truth to each other in love (Ephesians 4:15). Some of the more articulate in the house are speaking truth in such a way that they are making others dull, not sharp. Evangelicals sharpen each other.

The Right Response: Evangelical First, Republican Second

I’m grateful for people like Eric Metaxas, Greg Laurie, and John Macarthur who are courageous enough to lay before the world their political convictions while remaining biblically firm enough to speak the truth in love—even when that means disapproval—to the political party they’re supporting. Backing Republicanism doesn’t mean we back all that the Republicans stand for nor that we approve of all members of the Republican party. Political parties are a means to an end—although an imperfect means. This response avoids the errors mentioned above and embraces the biblical truths which the responses above lack.

Voting is a privilege and divine mandate based on our inherent identity as image-bearing representatives of God on earth. Both parties are not morally equivalent. Both parties will not produce an equal moral outcome in government and society. We have the responsibility to do due diligence to determine which party is better morally, philosophically, and practically, and then vote based on those convictions. Even if both parties are undesirable, we must do the hard work, pray, and vote with courage and faith.

So Remind Me What It Means to Be an Evangelical

Evangelicalism in general is not an institution nor found in a person. In short, Evangelicalism is a set of beliefs and values. These beliefs and values don’t stem from human contriving or proclivities. They rest on the acts and words of God who has involved Himself in human affairs. We orient what we think, feel, say, and do based on what He has done and said. Evangelicalism is a term developed to describe those who believe and value the same things.

Evangelicals stand on four key pillars.

First, the Bible has the final authority on matters of life and faith. The Bible gives us perspective. The Bible is divinely inspired by God’s Spirit and useful for learning about God, God’s ways, and God’s will in the world (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Evangelicals read the Bible closely and interpret it carefully so that they accurately understand the Bible’s stance on what it teaches. We wrestle with but don’t argue against what the Bible teaches.

Second, the Gospel invites people to enjoy by faith the full favor and benefits of God because of Jesus’ sacrificial and substitutionary death on a cross. Jesus gives us transcendence. Jesus’ resurrection authenticates the meaning His death and, through the Spirit, unleashes all those benefits, which His death purchased, to the one who places his or her faith in Him (1 Corinthians 15; Romans 5; 8). One cannot come to know God or enjoy all His benefits in any other way. Therefore, Evangelicals embrace those benefits through the power of the Spirit and through the Word of God so they can become who they’re truly meant to be in Christ.

Third, people come into this world naturally opposed to God and good living to the extent that they need a supernatural, internal, spiritual, and moral work of God on their heart, mind, and spirit to actually know God, put their faith in Christ, enjoy the benefits of God, and do the will of God (John 3:1–16). The Spirit gives us hope. Without that internal, spiritual work through the Holy Spirit, one exists as a child of God’s wrath, enchained by Satan’s influence, bent toward corrupt desires, and spiritually dead to God (Ephesians 2:1–3). The Spirit applies the finished work of Christ on the cross to reverse the works for sin, Satan, and death. The Spirit regenerates a person so that he or she can better represent God’s presence on earth and reflect God’s nature throughout the earth (Titus).

Fourth, born-again believers aim to enjoy God’s person, express God’s nature, and extend God’s message in the Gospel. The Gospel gives us purpose. All people must hear the Gospel. Without hearing the Gospel and whole-heartedly embracing God, people will be eternally condemned after they die (Romans 2; 10). Evangelicals have the primary responsibility of spreading the Gospel where it has yet to be heard and strengthening the Gospel message, via spiritually flourishing church communities, where the Gospel message has already reached.

These four priorities lead to many implications. Yet, all of those implications stand on these four. In short, Evangelical beliefs encompass—theoretically—one’s entire framework for thinking about life and one’s entire direction in life. These pillars ground the Evangelical’s identity. These pillars, or implications of these pillars, give us a framework of biblical reasons for voting for Trump instead of Biden.

Progressive ideology provides alternative, opposing answers to each human’s need for perspective, transcendence, hope, and purpose. Progressive ideology consists of an amalgam of evolutionistic, scientistic, Marxist, and pragmatistic ideas as an authoritative guide for interpreting all of life (perspective). Our connection to society and government supremely and satisfactorily connects us with something greater than ourselves (transcendence). A powerful government can right all the wrongs by restructuring society (hope). One must participate in and support the government’s fight to right all those wrongs (purpose).

Evangelicals acknowledge that they ultimately don’t wage war against flesh and blood, but against evil, spiritual powers that are swaying peoples’ thoughts and desires against God, the ways of God, and the will of God (Ephesians 6:12)—especially those people who’re in power. So Evangelicals take it upon ourselves to wage spiritual war against every lofty opinion or argument that exalts itself against the knowledge of God—whether that opinion be religious or philosophical or cultural or political (2 Corinthians 10:3–5 ). Jesus said folly is a sin that defiles a person (Mark 7:22). Folly not only corrupts individuals, but it also corrupts societies and governments. Folly distorts reality and leads to bad decisions. Evangelicals have a mandate to expose false, godless assumptions that war against human flourishing at all levels.

In short, Evangelicals have a mandate to talk with the force of reason and biblical truth.

20 Biblical Reasons for Voting Republican instead of Democrat

In summary, the Bible opposes much of the ideology and ethos that fills Progressivism. As of 2020, Progressivism is now the dominant force driving the Democratic party. It’s not a person or institution. It’s a system of values and beliefs, like Evangelicalism. In some cases, Progressivism has infiltrated the Republican party. In those cases, however, the Republican party simply doesn’t take Progressivist ideology as practically as far as the Democratic party takes it—and that has to be sufficient to gain a tally on our voting grid.

Generally speaking, however, the Conservatism of the Republican party stands opposed to Progressivism of the Democratic party.

Below, I argue that Progressivism is made up of many false, godless assumptions that are incompatible with Evangelical beliefs and values. Of course, many of Progressivism’s points contain a partial amount of truth, but the truth is shouted so loudly against other truthful voices that that truth is wrong. Also, not all Democratic politicians and voters hold all the points below. Some Democratic politicians and voters may even eschew some of these beliefs or values, but their eschewing is largely irrelevant because those who hold influence in the Democratic party espouse in large measure the Progressive ideology and ethos. These assumptions and values have unending ripple effects throughout much of the way one views politics, does politics, and approaches policy making.

I simply wish to summarize Progressivist assumptions and how they conflict with biblical truth. Many people often hold their beliefs and values at an intuitive, visceral level without actually articulating what they are. That’s why those who hold Progressive ideology and those who hold an Evangelical ideology disagree with each other in their gut reaction without always being able to explain why. Here’s my attempt to explain why. For space’s sake, I don’t dive into details or examples. I acknowledge and accept that critique. But I say with a fair amount of confidence that all the Progressivist points I mention below have historical and philosophical ground that can be found elsewhere. I am certain I am wrong somewhere in something I say below and would be grateful to receive your feedback.

#1 God Authorizes Certain Inalienable Human Rights, Not the Government

Progressivism seeks to elbow God out of the equation of human rights. All things come from Caesar and belong to Caesar. Not God. The government, therefore, authorizes an individual’s rights. The government determines what those rights are and has the authority to revoke an individual’s rights should they interfere with the government’s greater agenda for the whole society. What the government freely gives, it can forcefully take.

Evangelicals believe what the Declaration of Independence states—that all humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our founders extrapolated on those rights I the Bill of Rights. Genesis 1:26–28 states that God made humans in His image for His purposes—meaning we have our being from God before we have our being from the government. Jesus testified to this truth when He said to give Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God to things that are God (Matthew 22:21). Humans owe debts to both. The United States’ founders acknowledged that. The best kind of government protects those rights belonging to each individual as endowed by their creator.

#2 God Explains Human History, Not Charles Darwin

Progressivism says to biblical position of history, “No thanks, I’ll take Darwin’s word for it.” Darwin’s theory of human history is that the strongest have adapted and overcome in the pursuit of survival which, by implication, has formed an unending journey of progress for our race. God had no hand in it. Whatever “progress” looks like in human civilization, we must pursue. In Progressivist thought, government defines what progress looks like and restructures society as much as is needed to reach that end. From Karl Marx to Franklin D. Roosevelt to the current Democratic party, we read of their definition(s) in enumerated lists of rights such as free (or affordable until its free) healthcare, housing, wages, labor, education, etc. that the government must provide to every citizen to achieve their definition of progress. Government must flex its arm as much as is needed to ensure every citizen has this equal outcome in life. That is the next stage of human evolution.

Unfortunately, history proves how this quest demands that government tramples individuals to achieve a common good. First Peter 2:13–14 summarizes that governments exist to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good. Government does not exist to parent humans their entire lives. Against Darwin, the entire Bible demonstrates that God works in human history to accomplish His will which he has clearly provided. We don’t have to guess what’s next for humans.

#3 Human Nature is Essentially Defined and Fixed, Not Essentially Malleable

Progressive thinkers like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson argued that human nature is malleable. Humans are evolving. What we are to be is still to be decided. But human nature can be manipulated, in a beneficial way, via education or by reordering one’s environment to produce the intended outcome of character and behavior.

While humans have the capacity for immense good because they are made in God’s image, human nature is flawed in a fixed way that cannot be undone by restructuring society (Ephesians 2:1–3; 4:17–18) or one’s environment nor through education. There is not a next evolutionary step for humans to take. Our nature is essentially defined and fixed. Political philosophy and government policies should keep this in mind. Progressivism rejects this truth. They reject that government should be structured in a way that best guards against the fallen nature of humanity—at every level of society and government.

#4 Human Perfectibility Depends Upon God, Not Upon Government

Rousseau’s belief in the perfectibility of man drives Progressive ideology to aim after inflating the government in order to achieve that perfectibility. Not only are humans malleable, Progressives argue, but they are also perfectible. This conviction of perfectibility reaches beyond skills and abilities into the realms of character and morality. Perfectibility must come by inflating the government in order to fix what’s outside. Fixing what’s outside comes before fixing what’s inside.

That belief is exactly backwards according to biblical teaching (Mark 7:1–23). All humans require inward fixing by God (Titus 3:4–8) that then reforms our behavior. Until God begins the next stage of human history, government exists in the present to limit the evil that can be done by humans and set a minimum standard of behavior which all humans are required to abide by. The annals of human history testify to the New Testament’s teaching that governments in the present age exist to limit evil, not to perfect humans (Romans 13:1–7).

#5 Utopia Requires God’s Intervention, Not Governmental Restructuring

Since Progressives hold that humans are evolving toward perfection at an individual and societal level, they believe societal utopia is a realistic aim. The primary institution powerful enough to achieve this aim lies in the government. So, it should be harnessed. The primary means by which to achieve this aim lies in restructuring society so that all people have an equal outcome in life. So, it should be enacted. Utopia requires God’s intervention. God is fixing people in the present through the Gospel of Jesus Christ that will culminate in a new creation (Revelation 21–22) which will be governed by a perfect, just king (Psalm 2; Isaiah 9, 11), Jesus Christ. That is the direction of history. Utopia does await some. Government in the present cannot create Utopia. The government’s attempt at restructuring inevitably results in the benefits of the government instead of the benefit of the governed due to humanity’s fallen nature. The government’s attempt at restructuring inevitably results in being unmerciful to some to be merciful to others, which eventually culminates in the misery of all—except those in government.

#6 Good Governing Flows First from Justice and Morality, Not Scientistic Expertise

Progressives believe scientific experts hold the key ingredients for restructuring society. Specializing in a useful discipline proves more valuable than accurate conceptions of justice and righteousness—because objective conceptions of justice and righteousness don’t exist according to Progressives. That is why the administrative state of the United States government currently exists. Progressives in the early 20^th century sought to collapse our government’s separation of powers in order to unleash the expertise of bureaucrats to remold society into the form it should be. The government’s need for expertise stands in front of the need for morality and virtue—especially as it relates to power and justice—in the Progressive’s mindset.

Biblical conceptions of a wise rulers prioritize righteousness, justice, and mercy for all (Isaiah 9, 11) over political and pragmatic competence. Passage after passage in the Old Testament condemns rulers not for their practical incompetence, but for their spiritual infidelity, abuse of power, and lack of justice and mercy (Jeremiah 5; Ezekiel 34).

#7 Humans Are Morally Corrupt, Not Morally Good or Neutral

Progressives not only believe that human nature is malleable and perfectible, but they also believe that it is generally good in nature, or at least neutral, and that bad education or a bad environment leads people to do evil. That’s why reshaping one’s environment or increasing one’s knowledge takes precedence in reforming people. One’s desires and will take a backseat in the priorities.

The Bible teaches that the human heart is fundamentally flawed which leads to bad ideas and immoral desires (Jeremiah 17:9). No amount of education and no improvement of our surroundings will ultimately fix what’s wrong inside of us. Only the Spirit of God can do that. A good education, good upbringing, and good environment can help, but they aren’t absolute. Government exists in the present age to limit evil, ensure justice, and praise those who do good (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–14). Humans need a better heart first, not a better mind or environment.

14). Humans need a better heart first, not a better mind or environment.

#8 Political Power Should Be Carefully Stewarded, Not Unprincipledly Wielded

Progressives view political power as an opportunistic tool to be exploited instead of carefully stewarded. In fact, many believe healthy stewarding of political power leads to wielding it as much as is possible to rectify all societal inequalities (which stem from immoral behavior). Progressives do not like checks and balances. They do not like a separation of political powers. They collapse all political moves into one power against another—regardless of justice or righteousness. You find this attitude that is hostile to separation of powers in presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Barack Obama. Now you find it in the entire Progressive base driving the Democratic party. In general, Progressive ideology ignores the dangers of unfettered power—because they neglect the corrupt heart-problem of all people. Progressives seek to reduce checks and balances.

Since the Bible contends that the government exists to check evil in society (Romans 13:1–7; 1 Peter 2:13–14) because of the evil within people (Romans 1:18–32), it seems logical to view evil as existent within government itself and that it is desirable to have such a government with checks against itself within itself. The founders of the United States concluded as much and so rigged our government with three separate but equal powers. The Republican party upholds this truth more than the Progressive party because the Republican party affirms, more so than the Progressives, that humans are not angels.

#9 People Believe Truth for Truth’s Sake, Not Truth for Mere Power’s Sake

Because of its Darwinian view of human nature—that we’re all in an all-out pursuit of survival—the Progressive party scoffs at humanity’s acceptance of the truth for truth’s sake and claims that people believe truth for the sake of surviving or achieving more power. People don’t believe something because it’s true, but because it’s practically beneficial and empowering. Ideas persuade because they lead to more personal advantages, not because the argument is stronger or more rational than another argument. So, argument in pursuit of truth is impractical and unrealistic. Humans argue to gain more power. In Progressive ideology, arguing is not for reaching truth, but for winning more power and influence so they can unleash their will upon society.

The Bible teaches that humans are made in God’s image (Genesis 1–2), which includes the capacity to reason and recognize what is true. Humans have the capacity to believe truth and should not only believe it but act on it. Because humans have corrupted themselves, we don’t always act on the truth. Nevertheless, people still gravitate toward truth for civilization’s sake. Otherwise, civilization couldn’t exist at all because the functional use of language would collapse. Believing truth for truth’s sake finds more prominence in the Republican party because there is a deeper sense of an objective moral law from divine law giver and there is a deeper sense of an objective reality. Even if Republican’s are not Christian, but mere deists, they will be more prone to objective truth and justice and righteousness more than Progressives because Progressives reject God’s involvement in the world and, therefore, objective standards true for all humanity.

#10 Moral and Immoral Actions Explain the Nature of Society, Not Merely Class Struggles

Because power supersedes truth, society can be reduced to class struggles. Progressives believe class struggles adequately represents all one needs to know about the problem of a society. One group against another. One class fighting another. Government must strengthen the weaker class and weaken the stronger class. The actual morals of either class does not matter as much—only that the stronger class is immoral by virtue of its having more power and because it always acts in order to keep itself stronger and the weaker class weaker. Government exists to eliminate all class inequalities.

Since humans are in the image of God and since God made the world to be occupied by humans, societal outcomes sometimes come from moral/immoral as well as wise/unwise decisions. Progressive ideology removes the place of morality and wisdom from individual choice more so than Republican ideology. While oppression and class struggles certainly exist because of corrupt human nature, society itself can’t be reduced to as much. Civilization wouldn’t exist without the rewards of wise effort or good morals. Progressives ignore the choices of individuals by claiming that class differences in themselves are an evil and should be rectified even if some in the upper class enjoy the fruit of hard work and clean living while those in the lower class endure the fruit of laziness and immorality. Again, Peter said a government exists to praise what is good (1 Peter 2:14–15). A blanket socio-economic leveling of each class would inevitably punish some for doing good and eliminate for others the consequences of doing bad. Conservatism acknowledge this truth more than Progressivism.

#11 Peace Must Come Through Strength, Not Appeasement

Because Progressives locate humanity’s chief problem externally rather than internally, they’re more prone to appease other nations to gain their good will rather than pursue a relationship built upon mutual respect and fairness. They carry their notions of class struggle to the global level and see stronger nations as having an obligation to “donate” power—economic, political, military, etc.—to weaker nations. At the global level, Progressives seek to promote equality at the expense of truth, morality, and justice in order to lift up weaker nations. Having more power automatically makes a country less just than weaker countries. Appeasement prevents the cardinal sin of power abuse.

The Bible supports peace through strength. The apostle Paul in Romans says the government “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4). Specifically, the government uses the sword, a powerful instrument of death, to ensure the outcome peace in society. Even now as nations are more connected than ever, the general principle applies. Nations use strength, in a just manner, to foster peace among themselves. Relationships between nations must be built upon mutual respect and clear agreements. Afterward, stronger nations can extend mercy or aid. Due to the fallen nature of humanity, mercy or aid generally should follow respect, agreements, and cordiality. For a nation to retain its strength does not mean it’s unmerciful. It’s possible to be strong and merciful. Often the stronger a nation is, the more merciful it can be. The United States has proven that. Extending mercy may produce feigned, temporary cordiality, but strength ensures respect and peace. So it’s better to be strong first, then merciful. Conservatives will do this more so than Progressives.

#12 Historians Must Unfold the Past First, Not Shape the Future

Progressives see the equalizing and leveling of power, through the means of government, as the primary goal of life, the next step in human evolution. Truth sometimes must take a backseat to these goals. But to produce these goals, the citizens of a nation must be persuaded that such goals are worthy of pursuit. Progressive historians, in the early 20^th century, took on this task of persuasion by writing history, especially American history, with the goal of persuading their readers of the Progressive agenda. These historians reinterpreted narratives to highlight class struggle, and the evils of it, to persuade their readers of the need for big government to intervene in the present day to subdue such evils. They left truth aside, finding it boring merely to unfold the past, so that they could shape the future. The same philosophy of historiography is still at work in large measure today. The more power Progressivism attains, the more it will squelch dissenting voices and empower historians who support their agenda.

The Bible affirms the benefits of telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth (Ephesians 4:15. 25; Colossians 3:9). Ideally, the truth should be told in a manner of love. But a lie kindly told does more damage than a truth harshly uttered. Lies offend God, destroy relationships, and destroy societies. While we all tell stories in order to produce some change as well as to entertain and inform, real events and words must govern the story and the lessons of it. Otherwise, you’ll lie. And that’s the problem with Progressive historiography. That’s the problem with the Progressive view of the United States history. Progressivism’s goal of change supersedes the primacy of facts.

#13 Journalists Should Relay the Facts First, Not Aim for Change

This point matches the previous one. Progressives carry the same goal as they have in historiography into journalism. Persuading readers of the Progressive agenda takes the driver’s seat instead of relaying the facts. Progressivism leads journalists to rearrange the facts to convey the meaning they have already decided they wish to convey—even before they read the facts. The more power Progressivism attains, the more it will silence or attack dissenting journalists and those empower journalists who support the Progressive agenda.

Finding significant meaning in the facts is a product of good journalism, but manipulating the facts to produce a preconceived agenda is to lie. Meaning should bubble up from the facts. Facts shouldn’t be squeezed into meaning’s already shaped mold. That journalistic methodology produces lies. It harms society. It harms the profession of journalism. It assaults truth. Conservativism believes this truth more than Progressivism.

#14 Jurists Must Adjudicate Based on Law, Not on Personal Preference or Values

This point matches the previous two. Proponents of the Progressive agenda do not like being bound by laws when those laws do not serve the agenda. To get around those laws, they engage in interpretive gymnastics to make the law say what they prefer it to mean, what they believe that law should mean according to their values. Progressives feel this way about the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They recast the narrative surrounding those documents so they can twist the words of the document to more accurately reflect the “spirit” of the documents which is not actually found within the actual words of the documents. In other words, they manipulate the meaning of words to match the meaning they want those words to say. That is the idea behind the “Living Document” philosophy that lies within the Progressive agenda. Practically, then, they want an interpreter of laws (a judge) to be a maker of laws (a legislator). The Progressive agenda holds this aim because it is the best method in our specific government, according to them, to produce the vision of society they want (mentioned above). Re-leveling the power structure is more noble than accurately interpreting laws. The more power Progressivism attains, the more it will empower judges who will adjudicate according to Progressivism’s preference.

The Bible’s harshest condemnation falls on those who manipulate words based on personal preference, in pursuit of a personal agenda, for the sake of personal gain—especially for religious purposes (Matthew 23; Acts 20). Generally, however, the principle also applies to those in political power. Twisting the meaning of words is a form of lying that God condemns—justice must be administered fairly to the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, regardless of the judge’s preferences or values. Conservatism holds to this biblical notion of truth more so than Progressivism. It’s not that Republicans hold this notion merely to retain power. They hold it because they see the need for common truth and common law in society.

#15 Our Soul Belongs to God, Not to Society

Progressive ideology does not like any form of religion unless that religion whole-heartedly supports its agenda for society. Otherwise, religion is just another tool used by the powerful to retain their power over the weak. That’s why Marx called it the opium of the people. The primary means to attain transcendence and meaning, according to Progressive ideology, comes in serving the agenda for restructuring society. That goal supplants one’s need for God by providing a different high calling for an honorable cause.

The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, clearly delineates how humans need a thriving relationship with God, built upon God’s Word and fueled by the Spirit of God, more than anything else in the world (1 John 5:12). Whoever has Jesus has life. Whoever does not have Jesus does not have life. The government cannot supply the kind of life Jesus supplies. Chaos ensues when government becomes the end-all, be-all. Trying to function without God is like a fish trying to survive out of water. Eventually, the fish will die. So will governments when they seek to take God’s place and ignore God’s Word. Conservatism acknowledges this reality more than the Progressivism.

#16 Government Should Incentivize Effort and Ingenuity, Not Enable Immoral or Unwise Behavior through Handouts

Since Progressives hold that one’s terrible lot in life falls more to systemic power abuses, they’re less prone to hold individuals accountable for their behavior and more prone to give handouts. Evil exists externally more so than internally. Since government can’t magically do everything by the wave of a wand, it should focus all its efforts on fixing what’s external which will likely lead to a person making better decisions and put that person on the path toward a wholesome life. Incentivizing effort and ingenuity is just another means of the powerful retaining their power over the weak. Progressives see it as a noble venture to take from the haves and give to the have nots even if each person arrived at their lot because of their own decision making—which Progressivism practically rejects.

The apostle Paul strongly acknowledges personal responsibility when he said a person shall not eat if he won’t work (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Here, Paul incentivized effort and ingenuity. He did not necessarily say a person must buy his or her own food. Sometimes, all one’s work cannot provide for all of one’s basic needs. Conservatism acknowledges this fact and still maintains the positive benefits of merciful government initiatives. But on the whole, Conservatism will be more prone to incentivize human effort and ingenuity even if it leads to inequalities in society. Conservatism leans toward accountability while Progressives lean toward enablement. Conservatism doesn’t view inequalities as an inherent evil—especially if those inequalities obviously arose from the personal decisions of the citizens. Conservatism rejects the notion that we’re unmerciful just because we don’t ascribe to the same poverty relief policies that Progressivism ascribe to.

#17 Government Owes Its Citizens First, Not Foreigners or Foreign Nations

Since the United States holds such a high level of power in the world, Progressives believe our country should do all it can to help immigrants and foreign nations—even at the expense of the economic and physical welfare of its own citizens. Our government has the obligation to let in all who wish to come and give to all who ask—hyperbolically speaking. Since leveling the distribution of power matters more than truth, personal morality, and justice, our government should avoid holding immigrants to a certain set of national values or holding foreign governments to a certain level of justice (pattern of behavior). It would be a noble and proper outcome for the United States to reduce its level of economic, military, and social power in order to raise the state of other nations—even if this pursuit comes at the expense of the safety, welfare, and happiness of the our country’s own citizens.

Paul, in 1 Timothy 5, acknowledges an order of obligation in society. Specifically, how one should provide for their nuclear family first, extended family second, etc. The general principle applies to governments—especially forms of government like the United States which is a government of the people by the people for the people. The United States government has an obligation toward the safety, welfare, and happiness of its own citizens before foreigners and other nations. That doesn’t mean our government should be ungenerous with respect to financial aid or immigrants or even visitors. But the government must engage in those noble endeavors in such a way that it does not place undue burdens on its own citizens or jeopardize their citizens’ future wellbeing. Conservatism acknowledge the need for each of the endeavors and seeks to engage in them in a healthy way, a way that is more measured and sober-minded than the Progressive agenda. Just because Conservatism doesn’t embrace whole-heartedly the Progressive view of foreign or immigration policy, it is not ruthless or harsh. Both views aim for mercy and generosity. Conservatism does it with a more biblical view of justice and righteousness.

#18 Government Should Ensure Justice for All, Not Restructure Society for Some

The highest and noblest pursuit of the Progressive agenda falls in creating a society where all people receive an equal outcome in life. They view the inequalities of society as having arisen from unjust behavior and systemic oppression rigged against the have nots. While Progressives won’t call it injustice, they must use the government to level out wealth and power and influence among its citizens through forceful means. Progressive’s disregard of how each person gained that wealth, power, and influence. Should a person or institution who supports the Progressive agenda, however, hold power, wealth, and influence—even if it was ill-gotten—then that person or institution should be empowered and harnessed until the government is strong enough to level all parties.

The Bible emphasizes that, before civic and criminal law, individuals are accountable for their own crimes and that individuals should be judged by the law on the merits of their actions instead of their in life (Exodus 23:6–9; Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17; 16:19–20). Conservatism holds this truth more than Progressivism. Progressives believe one’s current status in life reflects problematic power structures that need rectifying rather than one’s decisions. Conservatism believes the government exists to protect rights and ensure justice while Progressives believe rights and justice has already been irredeemably perverted and will remain as much until all parties are equal.

#19 Life Starts in the Womb, Not Out

The Progressive agenda rejects that life should be protected at the zygote, embryo, and fetus stage of a woman’s pregnancy. The zygote, embryo, and fetus is merely a part of a woman’s body which she can choose to dismember if she wants. Progressives hold that those who want to illegalize abortion do so to retain their power against the rights of women, the weaker party.

The Bible holds that all humans are endowed by God with His sacred image (Genesis 1:27), that all life is precious, and that a person is fully endowed with that image—separate from the mother’s endowment of God’s image—within the womb (Psalm 139:13–16; Jeremiah 1:5; Luke 1:41). Conservatism respects this truth more than Progressivism. Conservatism will work for the wellbeing of the mom and unwanted baby more so than Progressivism who works for the wellbeing of the mother only.

#20 God Condemns Abuse of Political Power First, Not Personal Immorality

Hypothetically, let’s say the worst of the legitimate claims against Joe Biden and Donald Trump were true. On the whole, the negatives of Trump fall more within the realm of personal immorality while the negatives of Joe Biden fall more within the realm of abuse of political power for personal gain.

The Bible holds its harshest words against those who abuse their political power for personal gain. The Bible condemns those who abuse their political power more so than those who commit private immoral acts.

Conclusion

In short, the Progressive agenda requires a new country. Progressivism wants nothing less than a new form of government, a new economic system, and a different set of values. The current state of these three realities in the United States are fundamentally flawed and need to be replaced, not improved, in order for Progressivism to achieve their vision for humanity. Conservatism, behind the Republican party, affirms and wants to amplify the good and noble aspects of our form of government, economic system, and set of values. Republicans ascribe to cultural values that are more in line with the biblical vision of human flourishing. While the Republican party is still wildly imperfect, it is better than the Democratic party that is driven by the Progressive agenda.

Therefore, Trump specifically, and Republicans, in general, should receive the vote of Evangelicals in the 2020 election.

Resources

Just about anything by the Heritage Foundation is helpful, but see especially their articles on Progressivism.

Just about anything by Ben Shapiro is helpful, but see especially his book How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.

Just about anything by Hillsdale College is helpful, but see especially their Constitution Reader.

The Center for American Progress is a great place to find the Progressive perspective at work.