Biblical Literacy and the Ballot: Why Faithful Christians Face a Dilemma with Modern Democrats
To argue that Biblically literate Christians cannot vote for modern-day Republicans or Democrats, one must consider the key Biblical principles that clash with the policies and behavior often associated with these parties.
A distinction needs to made before going headlong into this topic, and that is between those who call themselves Christians who are Biblically literate and those who call themselves Christian who aren’t biblically literate.
Biblically literate people who profess Jesus as their Savior are those who possess an understanding of the Bible, including its teachings, historical context, and key themes. They are generally able to interpret Scripture accurately and apply its principles to their lives, demonstrating a commitment to living according to God’s Word approaching Scripture exegetically, and when incorrect are capable of being corrected by others sharing their faith like fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, elders and/or pastors.
By “exegetical” we mean a foundational practice in theology that seeks to uncover the intended message of the Scriptures. In theology, exegesis is the process we use to understand and explain the original message of the scriptures so that we as Christians know how to apply Scripture to our lives today.
Those who are Biblically literate approach the Bible to be formed by it, not to form it to them.
Now, with these terms defined, let’s proceed to head longing (?)….
Today, I am making the case that Biblically literate Christians who are genuinely God-reverent can’t Biblically justify voting for modern-day Democrats and will also address the notion that Biblically literate Christians can or can’t vote for modern-day Republicans (article forthcoming).
This isn’t a comprehensive thesis per se but should supply enough information to make the case at hand.
To do this, we must consider the principles and values outlined in Scripture and contrast them with the policies and ideologies typically associated with the Democratic and Republican parties.
Abortion
One of the most heated topics of our lifetime is that of abortion. We know that since Roe-v-Wade was implemented on January 22, 1973, this has been a hotbed of debate and division.
Then, after 50 years, it was overturned. Half of the country went into panic; the other half celebrated.
For the average church-going Christian, this issue alone has been a key reason, if not the key deciding factor, in choosing which candidate to vote for. I know this has been the case for me personally.
In 2016, when Hillary Clinton was running against Donald Trump, 2 candidates I had and still have immense disagreement with, my decision was made based on what each of these candidates said regarding the sanctity of life.
One of the core tenets of Christian belief is the sanctity of life.
The Bible is unequivocal in its assertion that life is sacred from conception. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks to God's intimate knowledge and creation of life in the womb: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb... your eyes saw my unformed body." This passage articulates that life begins at conception, a view that is fundamentally at odds with the Democratic Party's strong support for abortion rights, including but not limited to late-term abortions.
Democrats generally support policies that expand access to abortion services and pitch abortion as a woman’s right to control her body. For a Biblically literate Christian who reveres God’s Word, though, the advocacy for such policies represents a clear departure from the Biblical view of life. To support a party that champions the right to end the life of babies in the womb is endorsing a practice in blatant conflict with the Bible.
As we see an increase in Biblical illiteracy among the Christian church in the United States and abroad, we see an increase in support and advocation for things that are clearly in conflict with Christian orthodoxy and Scripture, not just limited to abortion.
The next topic of common difference and debate between Christians and the world is that of the Family.
The Family
The Bible also places a high value on the traditional family structure as God’s design for society. In Genesis 2:24, it is written, "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh." This establishes the family unit as the foundational social structure, with marriage defined as a union between one man and one woman.
Jesus Himself quoted the Old Testament in Matthew 19:4-6 when the Pharisees were challenging Him about marriage and divorce. By pointing back to the creation narrative where God established marriage as a union between one man and one woman, He also affirms that marriage is designed and defined by God, not by culture. Marriage, in a Biblical context, is represented as an institution by God as a lifelong, exclusive union between a male and a female that reflects the complementary nature of two genders.
Jesus emphasizes this design not as a cultural or historical construct but as a divine covenant with God that transcends time and culture.
In His discussion with the Pharisees, Jesus highlights the phrase "one flesh," which signifies a profound, inseparable bond between husband and wife. This concept underlines the uniqueness and sacredness of the marital relationship, where the union of a man and woman is not just physical but also spiritual and emotional.
The "one flesh" unity is unique to the marriage relationship, making it distinct from any other type of human relationship. By invoking this concept, Jesus is reinforcing the idea that marriage, as originally intended, is a sacred, unbreakable bond between one man and one woman.
Jesus always interpreted and applied Scripture with authority, clarifying or correcting misunderstandings. His reference to Genesis 2:24 serves as a definitive statement on the nature of marriage. By invoking the creation narrative, Jesus is effectively saying that this is the authoritative model for marriage that should be followed when marriage is done.
But on May 17, 2004 the United States culturally appropriated this Judeo-Christian practice.
Same-sex marriage was first legalized in the United States on May 17, 2004, in the state of Massachusetts. This was the result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health in November 2003, which found that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling went into effect on May 17, 2004, making Massachusetts the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage.
Initially, the government’s role in marriage was primarily administrative, providing legal recognition and regulation of a practice that is fundamentally religious. Marriage licenses and civil recognition of marriage were means by which the state could recognize and support a social institution that was rooted in the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.
The government did not create or define marriage; it simply acknowledged a pre-existing religious practice. A pre-existing Judeo-Christian practice that pre-dates the formation of the United States itself thousands of years.
By ruling that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court effectively redefined marriage from a covenantal relationship ordained by religious tradition to a legal contract defined by the state. This shift is the government appropriating a religious institution and transforming it into a secular, state-defined entity.
This appropriation removed marriage from its original religious context and redefined it according to secular, legal standards, thereby altering its cultural and spiritual significance, at least in secular society. Christians who are Biblically literate know only God defines marriage since He alone is the origin of it.
This redefinition of marriage in this context has broader implications for religious freedom. By assuming the authority to define a religious covenant, the government effectively intruded into a domain that had traditionally been the purview of religious communities. This shift raises concerns about the separation of church and state, as it suggests that the government now has the power to redefine religious practices.
Modern-day Democrats aggressively promote policies and cultural norms that redefine the concept of marriage and family. Their strong support for same-sex marriage and policies that challenge traditional gender roles and identities are inconsistent with the Biblical model of family. Christians who hold fast to Biblical teachings cannot reconcile their beliefs with the Democratic Party’s agenda on these issues if they are exercising Biblical exegesis.
Social Justice and Religious Freedom
While the Bible does call for justice, care for the poor, and love for one’s neighbor (Micah 6:8 and Matthew 25:40 are just two references), these principles must be pursued within the framework of God’s moral law.
However, modern Democrats’ approach to social justice issues diverges from Biblical teachings. While addressing inequality is a Biblical concern, Democrats’ methods, such as wealth redistribution through taxation and expansive and intrusive government intervention, is contrary to the Biblical principle of personal responsibility and the voluntary nature of charity (2 Corinthians 9:7).
Moreover, Democrats support policies that infringe on religious freedom, such as compelling businesses and religious institutions to act against their beliefs in matters related to marriage, sexuality, and gender.
Some examples of Democrats policies that are proven infringements on religious freedom are:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): This case involved a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the baker, leading to a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, has been involved in several legal cases related to his refusal to create custom cakes that go against his religious beliefs and has essentially been in court defending his religious rights since 2012.
California’s SB 1146 (2016): A bill that sought to require religious colleges and universities to adhere to the political left’s concepts of sexual orientation and gender identity in order to receive taxpayer state funding.
Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (2020): The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic organization, challenged the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, arguing that it forced them to act against their religious beliefs.
For a Christian who is committed to living according to God’s Word, supporting a party that threatens religious freedom poses a significant contradiction and conflict.
Conclusion
For Biblically literate and God-reverent Christians, the modern-day Democratic Party’s positions on life, family, and religious freedom present serious moral conflicts. These issues are not merely political; they touch on fundamental aspects of Biblical teaching and Christian living. Therefore, Biblically literate Christians should easily conclude that voting for a party that promotes policies contrary to these core beliefs is incompatible with the faith. Consequently, in good conscience, support for the modern-day Democratic Party cannot be justified or supported Biblically.