Search this blog

I've been the pastor at my church since the summer of 2004. That means this is the fourth presidential election we have been through together. In each of the previous three, there have been moments--small, isolated moments--of conflict surrounding the election. Things have been stirred up by email chains, social media fodder, and sometimes by things I have said. I hope these brief reflections will not be in the category of "stirring up," but rather might provide some clarity about what Christians should agree on and what we may not have to agree on.

Here we go.

1. Since this will come up in every comment and has been asked by my own parishioners dozens of times, I'll make clear from the outset: I will vote for President, but I will not vote for either of the major party candidates. I have been critical of both candidates--more so than in any previous presidential election--because I believe both fail to clear a basic threshold of personal integrity, sound judgment, and trustworthiness.

2. This does not mean I think every Christian must come to the same decision in order to be a good Christian. There are simply too many prudential matters in the mix for Christians to be adamant that you absolutely cannot vote for so and so. Someone may think Trump is a lecherous oaf, but still conclude that his policies and judicial appointments have a better chance of being good for the nation. Likewise, someone may find Clinton's position on abortion utterly deplorable, but conclude that Trump's pro-life credentials are untrustworthy and that Clinton is less likely to be recklessly incompetent. Others may be convinced that an unpopular Clinton presidency may be better for conservative principles in the long run than a train wreck Trump administration would be. Some people may think voting third party is a waste. Others may figure it is one way to send a message that the system failed us this time around. Or maybe they really, really like Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin or whomever. Do I agree with all these arguments? No. But am I able to tell Christians that these arguments are manifestly unbiblical? No. They are conclusions that require prudential judgments. While our church might discipline a member for holding the positions Clinton holds or for behaving the way Trump has behaved, this does not mean we have biblical grounds for disciplining a church member who, for any number of reasons and calculations, may decide that voting for either candidate (or neither) makes the most sense. And if we wouldn't discipline someone for a presidential vote, we should stop short of saying such a vote is sinful and shameful.

3. While it is not the role of pastors to tell their people who to vote for, it is our role to interpret Scripture and point out theological carelessness. Yes, David was a great sinner who was used mightily by the Lord. Yes, God forgives sinners and so must we. But David repented of his sin (see Psalm 51). Being a sinner like David doesn't qualify anyone for anything, except for the redeeming blood of Christ and the saving grace that will be given to all those who truly repent and believe.

4. Likewise, Cyrus was a pagan ruler used by God for the good of his people. Which establishes that God can use pagan rulers for the good of his people. The example itself says nothing about whether God will use a particular pagan ruler, or whether God would have us vote for said pagan ruler if given the chance.

5. Even if you are a hold-your-noser instead of a NeverTrumper, every Christian should agree that Trump's comments about women and his actions toward women (not to mention the way he has spoken of minorities) have been horrid. We embarrass ourselves when we try to defend the indefensible. And to claim it was merely locker room talk (which it wasn't), or that you've heard worse (sadly, many have), or all men have spoken like that before (they haven't) only serves to excuse sins that need to be forgiven not minimized.

6. And what about Clinton? It's true, some conservative evangelical Christians have voiced more criticism about Trump than about Clinton. I imagine this is because most conservative evangelical Christians do not consider Clinton a viable option because of her extreme views on abortion. The conversation among most white evangelicals is not Trump or Clinton but Trump or not Trump. But certainly Clinton is no paragon of virtue either. It is hard to think she can be trusted with money, with power, with classified information, or with simply telling the truth.

7. But we are not voting for Pastor-in-Chief! Agreed. I don't insist that the President of the United States has to be qualified to be a leader in our churches or even a member in our churches. And yes, many presidents have been morally bankrupt. But we can't say what we would do then with what we know now. More importantly (and more theologically), we must not be moral relativists. The Bible does not teach that every sin is the same, nor does it suggest that private character is an irrelevant consideration for public service. There is nothing about sitting in the Oval Office that magically transforms people into something other than what they have been. If anything, power tempts even good people to be bad and makes bad people even worse. Our candidates will always be imperfect. When and where that imperfection crosses the line into "morally unfit" may be a matter of discretion, but it must be a matter that matters.

8. Likewise, to criticize a candidate's egregious moral faults is not "casting the first stone." We are not killing them or condemning them as irredeemably lost. The question is not whether Trump or Clinton are perfect moral examples, or whether we have failings in our past, or whether grace can cover all our sins. I evaluate presidential candidates with the same sort of grid I'd use for a staff evaluation: character, convictions, competence, and chemistry. Obviously, I don't look for all the same things in a president as I would for an associate pastor. But I do think that in both cases a person's ethical compass is crucial. The Founding Fathers, however imperfect they were in practice, were at least agreed that a Republic cannot long endure apart from the cultivation of virtue. I'd like to see the President defend and pursue the same.

9.There is a tendency, on both sides, to treat "our side" differently than we treat "their side." Would the same Christian leaders excusing Trump's statements ever think to excuse the same from Clinton (Bill or Hillary)? Of course not. Would liberals be overlooking Bill Clinton's treatment of women (and Hillary's role in downplaying or silencing accusations) if a Republican candidate (or spouse) had the same trail of serious allegations? No way. So much of politics is "defend our guy at all costs" and "seek and destroy their guy at all costs." The church must show a better way.

10. I am interested in politics, always have been. I follow the ups and downs and ins and outs of the campaign season closely. I love my country and care about who wins and loses. Elections have consequences. Yet I'm much more interested in the church--my church and the Church. Our fidelity to biblical truth, our personal holiness, our sincerity, our consistency, our ability to speak with grace and truth, our unwillingness to confuse the kingdom of this world with the kingdom of Christ, our realism in the midst of utopian promises, our hope in the midst of fear and loathing, our winsome witness to the gospel--to embody these realities week after week is more important than what happens on the second Tuesday in November.

View Comments


82 thoughts on “Seeking Clarity in this Confusing Election Season: Ten Thoughts”

  1. Scott says:

    I find it interesting that so many people are using the “for the sake of the church” argument in favor of Trump. Is there anything in the Scriptures that lead us to believe that Christ needs our government, supreme court, or our constitution in order to ensure the health and mission of His Church? Is it being suggested that it is through the supreme court that the church in America will rise or fall? I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I’m struggling to understand this line of thinking.

  2. Bill says:

    Thanks, Kevin. Well thought out as usual. May God have mercy on all of us!

  3. Sean Gleason says:

    I’m generally curious why someone in your church would be disciplined for having Hillary Clinton’s views? Which specific views would be subject to discipline? Further what scriptural basis would you use to justify the “discipline?”

  4. Jim Lehe says:

    First, pertaining to #5, Trump has not spoken ill of minorities. He said Mexico sends us many of their rapists and criminals. He also said most Mexicans are good people. The place we must start is understanding God’s expectations for civil government. Too much is made of government in light of the OT economy of Israel. Israel was God’s chosen nation and light to the nations then and had a much higher standard. The NT says that civil government serves the purpose of maintaining law and order and justice (Romans 13) and to provide for a peaceful and stable societal environment where gospel ministry can best flourish. (1 Tim. 2:1-4) That’s it. The church is to be the transformative agent in this world. Government is charged with providing an atmosphere that will be most conducive to the church’s mission, which is stability and the freedom to proclaim the Word of God openly. Civil government has nothing to do with advancing the kingdom of God. When government gets too involved in matters of the church, the church ALWAYS loses. Romanism is our lesson of what happens to the church when government sees itself as the extension of the church’s mission. Thus, we should simply ask ourselves which candidate will best maintain law and order and justice and best preserve our religious liberties to pursue open gospel ministry. Trump speaks to the issues of law and order and expanding religious freedom. Hillary is lawless and has promised to curtail religious liberties when in conflict with secular values. The choice is obvious in light of the NT mandate for civil government.

  5. Susan Mains says:

    As Americans we tend to be very individualistic. We champion personal responsibility and all that stuff. As “Evangelicals” we recognize Jesus Christ as our High Priest and reserve the right to flippantly dismiss our pastors and other Christian leaders, if we feel differently than they do. This is done with regularity and at every level. My question is, is it ever legitimate for American Evangelical Christians, including local pastors, to recognize proven faithful Christian leaders at a national level who have gained access to a presidential candidate and follow their lead? These leaders have been in the trenches, so to speak, and have insight that we are not privy to. I am astounded at how divided Christian leaders are in this election season and how easily some will regurgitate slander from various news sources but won’t give credence to observations from dedicated soldiers who are closest to the battle. Most Christian leaders who will not vote for Donald Trump have never met him, had opportunity to observe him in every day situations or develop a relationship with him, but will seemingly easily dismiss the recognized and faithful Christian leaders who have. Maybe local leaders should consider modeling to their parishioners humility by putting themselves under leaders who have lots more practical insight than they do. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” – Hebrews 13:17

    “May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” – Romans 15:5-7

  6. Debra Rivera says:

    The Lord tells me what is good in His word. It is His word that I listen to, not the proclamations of Christian leaders and political parties. I look to history for the patterns. I know what a God-honoring system of government is supposed to look like; our Founders gave it to us. It is obvious that both political parties are rotten to the core. Our nation is living a soft tyranny because we continue to put our trust in corrupt men, and a corrupt political system. We fail to give our ears to the teachings of God.

    Isaiah 1:23
    “Your princes are rebels
    and companions of thieves.
    Everyone loves a bribe
    and runs after gifts.
    They do not bring justice to the fatherless,
    and the widow’s cause does not come to them.”

    If we honestly look at what has happened to our inner cities, it is a foreshadowing of what is to come to our nation as a whole. What has happened in the inner cities? How did they become so broken, spiritually and culturally? Why did the people put their trust in Democrat politicians, and blindly continue this practice, regardless of the broken promises and communities? It started with a compromising Church. The inner city churches got into bed with the politics of the Democrat Party, putting their trust in men, rather than God, and the faith leaders led their congregations toward their self-destruction. They compromised their witness to the Truth, God’s commandments were ignored, and the people perish.

    We are witnessing the very same thing happening within the evangelical churches. The only difference is they are putting their trust in the politics of the Republican Party. These evangelical leaders are ignoring the commandments of God for a political outcome. It is a compromised witness through idolatry and covetousness, and the result will bring about the same judgment.

    Our God is a formidable Judge. He calls his own people his enemies! To depart from faithfulness to Him is a more shocking sin than the people realize. Part of God’s process of judgment is to remove the unbelieving members of the people, the rebels and sinners who forsake the Lord. Many in the Church are forsaking the Lord. The consequences are visible in the inner city, and growing throughout our entire nation.

    Doing good in God’s sight includes seeking the just functioning of society. It all starts with putting God first. Self-salvation, though it seems to make the people strong for a time, carries with it its own self-destruction.

    My love for God and all people is why I am sounding the warning bell. I am anguished by what I see all around me. We need to repent. We need to change our thinking. We need to stop our devotion to a world system that is opposed to God. We need to pray.

  7. David Connon says:

    Well said, Kevin!

  8. Ashley Whitaker says:

    It sounds like an awful lot of reasoning to me. I think if we quiet our minds and focus on God and ask Him, He will give us wisdom in who to vote for. I absolutely agree with what Joe Lehe said in a previous comment. He made a very complex set of circumstances quite simple.

  9. Ashley Whitaker says:

    Jim Lehe

  10. Scott Garrity says:

    Ashley Whitaker – I really have trouble following the logic of your comment. It seems you are saying that there is too much reasoning in the original blog and that one should quiet his mind and ask God for guidance. Then you say you totally agree with Jim Lehe’s comment, which is his REASONING for why to vote for Trump. Many of us have used sound reasoning and serious prayer to come to the conclusion that God does not want us to associate with Donald Trump by voting for him. As for Jim Lehe’s reasoning, I don’t find it sound. God opposes the proud is not an Old Testament economy. God despises those who take advantage of and mistreat the poor is not Old Testament. Boasting that one does not need to ask for forgiveness has nothing to do with Old Testament economy. Tearing viciously and slanderously into anyone who you run against or think is getting in your way doesn’t make one fit for civil government. Personally, I believe that we as evangelical believers will lose any standing we have with non-believers as we try to share the gospel with them if we give our support to Trump. Not much good to have Jim Lehe’s version of religious freedom if it comes at the cost of standing up for what is right.

  11. Would this Pastor actually tell his people to try to plead this same neutrality when it comes to choosing Christ? That’s it’s ok to be a fence sitter as regards God? Then why do so when it applies to government which would affect religion and our duty to our Creator? Would he approve the ‘fence sitting’ which so many people do and which he advises here, and apply it to his church? Hmmm… Furthermore, some people delay accepting Jesus because they think that ‘fence sitting’ is neutrality. Fence sitting is dangerous. No decision IS a decision!
    We are in a battle between good and evil and a fence sitter is an open target for evil because he has not chosen to jump down and choose the good side.
    Secular reasoning: “The only thing evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing.”
    Religious reasoning: yet Jesus says, “…because you are luke warm, I will spit you out of my mouth…”
    A word to the wise is sufficient. Choose the good side. Jim Lehe tells it here like it is.

  12. Mary Tindall says:

    I pray daily for our nation. I know that God is Sovereign. At times, many times, I know not how to pray other than “Thy will be done”. He is in control. That being said, I will not vote for Hillary. Any vote for anyone other than Trump, is a vote for Hillary. So, although I find Trump reprehensible, I think he loves America and so do I. He loves our Constitution and so do I. I am not voting for a Christian this time around because there isn’t one. I’m voting for the best choice we have and the standard is extremely low. May God have mercy on our country.

  13. David says:

    DeYoung makes the classic mistake of evaluating his own moral fitness instead of accepting the two viable choices and moving forward. You know why? Because it’s a hard choice.
    The premier issues for the Christian are sanctity of life, religious liberty, responsibility for the weak and unprotected. Which candidate gives you the best chance to have a positive outcome in regards to those issues? It’s obviously Trump but Kevin is too busy with his moral preening. What a fail.

  14. Andy says:

    Love all of the logic in this post… except the whole idea of not voting!

    Yes, by not voting I mean, not voting for one of the two primary candidates. I love all the evangelical leader theology in these posts these days, but everyone is so scared to tell it like it is. (scared to be the next Grudem). We have no choice but to vote for Trump. Am I the only one that feels this way?

    Ross Perot won 19% of the majority vote in 1992. Thats amazing! Guess how many “points” he scored for the electoral vote… 0! That means he didn’t even exist! He never played the game! Except to essentially convince people that they’re not voting for the lesser of two evils, which of course inevitably vaulted the greater of 2 evils into the Oval office. Hmm. Third parties are a cute thought, but the logic just doesn’t hold up in our system.

    My theology is in the clouds on this too… but in reality I think we should vote this year. Trump is the only option.

    PS I don’t think voting is “supporting” Trump. He is a means to an end. Just like cheering for Kobe Bryant is a means to an end for your city to win the NBA title, not for you to endorse his rape case(s). If you think like that… then turn off the NFL, turn off Nascar, turn off your TV in general, don’t drink at Starbucks, don’t shop at walmart, don’t buy nike, and don’t do anything that possibly “supports” something evil. Not to mention most of us all work for terrible people. Voting is not character condoning… its policy petitioning.

  15. DCal3000 says:

    I have been considerably alarmed by the tendency of so many Gospel Coalition members, such as Jared Wilson and Joe Carter, to condemn their fellow Christians as apostate merely for the act of voting for or against a candidate. Kevin DeYoung has not slipped into such an error here. His points are biblically consistent and will help bring healing to the church and nation. I thank him, and I hope his Gospel Coalition colleagues learn these points too. This election may be unique, but if we make the mere act of voting (without examination of motive) a matter of orthodoxy, it will not stop with this election. Pastors in future will be forced to blacklist candidates up and down the ballot and discipline church members who disagree. In short, the evangelical church will become an arm of political parties in ways that not even the old Christian Right was. Kevin DeYoung’s column points to a better way. As someone with a political science degree and an interest in Christian political thought, I am grateful.

  16. Rachael says:

    In WW2 we backed Stalin against Hitler, even though we knew he was a homocidal dictator because we knew Hitler was the greater threat. Were we wrong in doing so? Trump is a deeply flawed person, but Hillary is worse. If she is elected it will mean the end of religious freedom in America.

  17. Fred Greene says:

    I’d say it’s an act of cowardice to say your not voting for Trump, or Clinton for that matter and not tell us who you are voting for so that others can offer a critique of your choice.

  18. Nick Adams says:

    I thank you for building a responsible foundation of clarity for a difficult election year. To say this election season has been perplexing and horrifying for Christians may be putting it very lightly. However, when I go to scripture for the answers rather than any of the 24/7 news outlets, I am far better informed. As a born again Christian who is anything but perfect, I have come to strongly believe that where we see nothing but turmoil and darkness, Christ sees nothing but opportunity. If anything, this challenging time provides the Church with a great opportunity for evangelism.

  19. Scott says:

    Excellent thoughts Kevin. It is this kind of thoughtful discussion I would hope to see on this generally revered website, vis a vis the incoherent diatribe of Collin Hansen a week or two ago. Nice to see the many reasonable comments in this section as well.

  20. Elena Mullins says:

    Thanks for this helpful article! I’m voting for Evan McMullin in November because I want those with power and influence in politics to know that there are people out there who agree with him on the issues and are hungry for candidates with personal integrity. I think that’s the best possible use of my vote, in the long term if not in the short term.

  21. Excellent post – obviously very well thought through. I agree with DeYoung that a pastor’s role is NOT to endorse a particular candidate, but to help congregates think and live biblically. A lot to think about here! For those who are reading, I thought you might be interested in a new website called One Million Prayers. It’s a site set up simply to collect prayers from around the world – non partisan and non denominational. Check it out at If you post your prayer with a location, your light will show up on the map.
    Great time to be praying for our country AND reading the prayers of others.

  22. How does one abstain and have it counted as an abstention?

  23. Tom Morgan says:

    Please remove me from future notifications. Your “Manage your subscriptions” link won’t permit me to.

    p.s. I’m sorry that you couldn’t see that we are both fighting for the same thing – we see how to accomplish that differently.

    I am also saddened that you see God as one who demands punishment – since He gave His only begotten son for all of our sins once and for all time, all we have to do is ask, I respectfully disagree with you. Nor do I consider my position on God to be heresy.

  24. Chuck Mancini says:

    A well written, thoughtful article, with 10 well-reasoned points. And yet dangerously naive and incomplete. Our Christian forefathers are likely rolling over in their graves. May God have mercy on Mr DeYoung’s flock. A shepherd who is lost in wilderness of his heart. He may have a fondness for politics, but he lacks political wisdom. Perhaps too theologically minded to be any civic good. For Mr DeYoung never makes the important point that when we vote for President we are in part voting for a person, but we are also voting for a PLATFORM. Has Mr DeYoung actually taken the time to read the detailed platforms of the parties? It sure doesn’t sound like it. Has he encouraged his blog readers to read the detailed platforms of the parties? No. But perhaps his 10 pithy theologically nuanced points are sufficient to guide the reader in her vote. For the record, I have read the platforms. And it quickly becomes clear which party is most likely to uphold the constitution and defend religious liberty, most likely to defend life, most likely to give the poor a path off of and freedom from the modern day plantation (dependence on government support), most likely to enable disadvantaged children to attend effective schools, and the most likely to set the captives free. When I vote, I won’t be voting for one of our deeply flawed candidates. But I will be voting for the platform that is most consistent with my understanding of our constitution and the intentions of our founders, economics and incentives, ethics, human nature, and the American historical tradition. Unlike the noble Mr DeYoung who only sees deeply flawed candidates and not party platforms, my reasoned vote will actually count. May God have mercy on those who read this blog and make their voting decision without reading the platforms. But if the unwise but bold Mr DeYoung someday ends up in prison for preaching truth from the pulpit because he enabled the Deomcratic platform he did not read to be elected, we all should visit him in prison before we too join him there.

  25. Tom Carollo says:

    Kevin, enjoy your writing. One question, I think 3rd party in this election, given the stakes of the court and the direction of the country is abdicating our voting responsibility. My question is, since you love your question and care about who wins or loses, and it will clearly be Trump or Clinton, how would you feel if half of the Christians voted 3rd party, and that was enough to cost Trump the election. I suspect you would be disappointed, and if that its the case, wouldn’t it be best to vote for Trump and pray he turns out better than you fear? I write this in love, and say you are one of the writers I enjoy reading.

  26. Jackson says:

    It’s crude, it sucks, but yea, it’s locker room talk. Coming from a huge ego with lots of money in private. And people are surprised? Wonder how many people voted for squeaky clean Kennedy to find out later how much of a mad dog player he was. Can the guy lead or not. Get over it. I’m not, btw, voting for either of these clowns. Still I think this point is a little silly how much attention it’s still receiving.

  27. Daniel Dillard says:

    We are all concerned about our credibility as witnesses to Christ. Would it not be best for our credibility to vote in such a way that seeks to minimize evil results, such as the taking of the lives of the unborn? Paul assuredly did not endorse Nero or minimize his sins by appealing to him. How does it help our credibility to vote or not vote in such a way that maximizes evil results?

  28. Lou Meier says:

    Amen, Chuck Mancini. Mr. DeYoung can’t see the forrest for the trees.

  29. Lou Meier says:

    Take a look at this article on Christians voting in this election. It makes more sense than Mr, DeYoung’s article.

  30. Darrin says:

    Kevin clearly misses the point of Luke 16’s account of the Master commending the manager for acting shrewdly; note that the Master then goes on to clarify that the people of the light aren’t very shrewd at all (it’s made clear that acting without shrewdness is a bad thing, not a good thing). So when Kevin and his followers passively elect Clinton by throwing away their votes and millions of more babies are sacrificed, the blood of those innocents will rightly be on the hands of Kevin and company – they can answer to God for their lack of shrewdness. Should be also suppose that Kevin would also condemn the actions of German Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer for plotting to murder Hitler? Talk about making a tough call! Wow, what a wonderful thing it would be to live in Kevin’s simpleton world. May God help Kevin grow up soon and make the hard decisions instead of running to the hills when real life gets messy.

  31. Daniel Dillard says:

    Scott raises a good question. I think the answer is Paul’s exhortation to pray for kings and for all in authority, so that we may live in peace, and because God desires the salvation of all (1 Tim. 2:1ff). The early Christians, who had been faithful in the midst of persecution, were very happy when Constantine converted and the persecutions stopped.

  32. David Simeone says:

    After 8 years of President Obama, I see both the Church and Christians attacked like never before in our country. I never thought that I would see the day that the 1st Amendment would be shredded for reasons such as promoting abortion to promoting deviant sexuality. The election is between 2 candidates. The third party candidates don’t represent someone who can win nor in the case of the Libertarian candidate who is running with a liberal running mate represent a true Libertarian.

    I think we have to pick between two candidates – one in which his millionaire, seemingly playboy caviler attitude has shown him to be a flawed person – much of which has also originates from a lifestyle several years in the past. I think we should be careful going with the secular flow which picks and chooses what story to focus. How many media sources today have focused on his lifestyle today – raising a family with children who seemingly were raised well, yes – a seemingly shrewd businessman but also a giving person to those in need with numerous stories of him using his means to help those in need. Then, the differences in issues between both major parties are huge – I don’t think people realize the extent of the differences this year. Briefly stated, Trump’s stand on abortion throughout the debates has been stronger than any that I can remember – most previous Presidential elections, the Republicans (true to form) would be spineless and try avoiding answer questions on social issues. But Trump has clearly took a strong stand on abortion, he has taken a strong stand on the Constitution and appointing Conservative judges, and he has already suggested several candidates for appointments to the Courts. I don’t know what else could be done to drive home this perspective. We are looking at possibly nominating 2-4 judges over the next 4-8 years. Their lifetime appointment means that this upcoming court will be instrumental in charting the path of our country for several generations to come affect millions of Americans.

    Unlike Trump, Hillary represents corruption that is happening today – not just several years ago. She also represents the most liberal platform that I can ever remember. Her stand on late term abortion was made very clear during the debates as well as you lack of criteria for upholding the Constitution with future nominations. That should cause concern for all Americans because attacking the Constitution fundamentally changes our country and takes away more of our freedoms while increasing government control and tyranny. Her views on social issues dealing with sexuality and gender go directly against that the Bible says and in the end is more harmful to those she says she is protecting. Again, both biblically and historically, there hasn’t been an American society nor a Western society that has gone down this path which in the end falsely promotes tolerance, diversity, and equality above liberty, truth, and justice. Hillary’s position on healthcare will further propagate the disaster that is known as Obamacare and will affect you and your children’s lives in an adverse manner. Her expansion of government spending is unprecedented and fiscally not possible without massive tax increases (e.g. she wants to expand Medicare from age 65 to age 55 – leaving most Medicare experts shaking their head wondering how that will be funded). Finally, her foreign policy experience has been disastrous for our country and the free world. Today, we have tension with Russia unseen since the Cold War, tension with China, North Africa is a mess (e.g. Libya), and the Middle East has been nothing short of a disaster with Iran and Russian becoming the dominant force under President Obama and Hillary as Sec. of State. The fact that we made a nuclear treaty with Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, may be the worst type of bargaining that this country has taken – jepoardizing our country’s safety, the safety of our allies around the world, and increasing the likelihood that other Middle Eastern countries would pursue nuclear weapons.

    The issues are far from typical and the impact will affect us for many generations to come. To decide to not vote for a major party candidate is a decision that will in effect elect the opposing major party candidate. If that candidate is Hillary Clinton, expect a different American, not just during the next 4-8 years but during future generations. I don’t think this is the election to not vote for a major party candidate. God has given us freedom in this country – it is truly in our lap on how we proceed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Search this blog


Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina. He is chairman of the board of The Gospel Coalition, assistant professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary (Charlotte), and a PhD candidate at the University of Leicester. Kevin and his wife, Trisha, have seven children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books