As an evangelical Christian myself, I’d like to encourage my fellow believers to cast their ballots. I also ask pastors to tell their flocks to vote, without endorsing one candidate over another.

First, however, let’s explain the research.

George Barna, director of research at Arizona Christian University’s Cultural Research Center, conducted two in-depth surveys in August and September. Online and by phone, Barna surveyed 2,000 adults who self-identified as Christians and said they attended church services at least once a month. He also did an online survey of 1,000 adults in the overall U.S. population.

The surveys found that only 51% of “people of faith”—those who describe themselves as affiliated with a recognized religious faith or as “a person of religious faith”—indicate they are likely to vote in the upcoming election. The U.S. voting-age population is about 268 million, and the survey estimated that about 212 million adults qualify as being in the “people of faith” category. Since 49% of “people of faith” in the survey indicated they would not be likely to vote, that amounts to approximately 104 million Americans “of faith” who are unlikely to vote.

Barna broke down these nonvoters into a few (sometimes overlapping) groups: born-again Christians, identified by their stated beliefs regarding sin and salvation (41 million nonvoters); self-identified Christians who regularly attend church services (32 million); voting-age adults who regularly attend an evangelical church (14 million); adults who attend Protestant churches (46 million); and adults who attend Catholic churches (19 million).

Likely nonvoters gave a variety of reasons for not voting: a lack of interest in politics and elections (68%), disliking all the major candidates (57%), feeling that no candidate reflects their most important views (55%), believing that their one vote won’t make a difference (52%), and saying that the election has become too controversial for their liking (50%).

Yet Barna’s research also found that these nonvoters may reconsider their apathy if their pastors encourage them to vote.

“This research underscores the fact that simply encouraging people to vote in order to fulfill their biblical responsibility would not only be seen as doing their job while helping the community, but an estimated 5 million regular churchgoers would be likely to vote as a result of that simple exhortation,” Barna said in a press release on the findings. “That, in itself, could change the outcome of the election.”

He also noted that the results of the 2020 presidential election, which were contested, came down to a combined total of 587,000 votes in nine battleground states.

“In that context, the 32 million Christians sitting in the pews each week who refuse to vote are a game-changer,” the researcher added. “It’s low-hanging fruit for pastors as they try to motivate those congregants to carry out their civic duty and honor God through their influence for things that matter in our culture.”

So, should conservative Christians vote in the 2024 election? Whether our votes will make a difference or not, what does the Bible say?

1. Honor the Ruling Authorities

Christians look with hope for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, when Jesus will reign and wipe away every tear. In the meantime, however, both the Bible and Christian tradition are clear: We should honor the ruling authorities.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God,” the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13:1. (I’m using the translation known as the English Standard Version for all Bible citations.)

Jesus proclaimed that he was the messiah at a time when the Jews expected a messiah to rise against Roman oppression, just like the Maccabees did against Greek oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Jesus repeatedly told his disciples and the Roman authorities that he didn’t come to usher in political change, for “my kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

So, in modern America, who are the “governing authorities?” The three branches established by the Constitution—the executive under the president, the legislative under Congress, and the judicial under the Supreme Court—certainly qualify. But each derives its own authority from the people, who exercise their sovereign will through voting.

I would argue that in modern America, if you are a citizen with the right to vote, honoring the governing authorities entails educating yourself on the major issues and casting a ballot in your local, state, and federal elections.

Paul also lays out the basic function of government: The ruler, he writes, “is God’s servant for your good,” to reward the good and punish the evil. Paul adds: “He is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:3-5).

At the most basic level, following the Apostle Paul’s directive here involves casting a ballot in the way that will best help the government be a servant of God’s ultimate justice while acknowledging that human justice is limited.

2. Seek the Peace of the City

Some Christians might object that casting a ballot represents an endorsement of flawed candidates or a flawed system, and therefore they should protect their consciences by not implicating themselves in a broken political system.

To these people I would point to Jeremiah 29, the letter that the prophet Jeremiah wrote to the Jewish exiles in Babylon. Although God inspired Jeremiah to write that letter to the Jewish exiles at the time, not to modern Christians today, Christians may look to Jeremiah’s advice for inspiration and guidance—especially as Christians find themselves in what feels like a hostile and post-Christian American culture.

“Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce,” Jeremiah wrote. “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29: 4-7).

Christians live in a sort of exile on earth, as citizens of heaven. As St. Augustine wrote in his magnificent book “The City of God,” Christians should work for the peace and prosperity of the earthly city in which we live, while longing for the heavenly city where our true citizenship and fulfillment reside.

This means voting in elections, sometimes for the lesser of what may seem to be two evils, because our votes will make a difference and can help the health of the earthly city where we currently dwell.

3. Instruments of God

Ultimately, God decides whether nations rise or fall, and whether he will give them prosperity or judgment.

This should come as great encouragement to American Christians who fear for our country. It is not up to us to determine whether the Constitution endures, whether the deep state will be defeated, or whether an immoral person takes the reins of the U.S. government.

Our votes can make an impact, but God determines the course of history, and he inspired Paul to write to the Romans, “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

This “good” does not always mean earthly prosperity—all things ultimately worked together for good for Stephen when he got stoned for preaching the good news about Jesus (Acts 7-8). It does mean, however, that we can put our ultimate hope in God, and look at the struggles in this world as a testing ground, a “vale of tears” before we reach the summit of everlasting joy.

“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will,” Solomon writes in Proverbs 21.

The prophets ring with the message that God sometimes chooses judgment for his people, the Jews, and he used both the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar and the Persian King Cyrus to accomplish his will. The first served God by delivering judgment on the Jews—destroying Jerusalem and carrying the Jews off into exile. The second served God by returning the Jews to Jerusalem, paying to rebuild the temple and the walls of the holy city.

When we vote, prayerfully and wisely, we are taking our own small part in God’s ultimate governance of human affairs. We won’t always get it right, but he will.

The vast majority of the Democrats in the House (162 of 212) signed the letter, led by Reps. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and Mark Pocan, D-Wis. The letter urges the House of Representatives not to include “provisions that actively target LGBTQ+ service members and LGBTQ+ dependents and threaten the recruitment, retention, and readiness of our Armed Forces” in the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill to fund the military.

The NDAA allocates money to the Department of Defense and it is considered one of the must-pass bills in Congress each year. Two of the letter’s signatories, Reps. Colin Allred, D-Texas, and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., are running for U.S. Senate in their respective states.

The letter flags provisions House Republicans added to the NDAA that would restrict what the Democrats call “medically necessary care for transgender service members or their family members.” In addition to defunding transgender medical interventions, the provisions would prevent military leaders from approving ideological flags like the LGBTQ “Pride” flag. They would also remove pornographic books and books pushing gender ideology from Department of Defense K-12 school libraries, which the Democrats call a “transgender book ban.” They would also ban any of the NDAA funds from going to “a drag show, drag queen story hour, or similar event.”

The 162 Democrats who signed the letter claim that these provisions would exacerbate the U.S. military’s recruitment and retention crisis and that people who identify as transgender are more likely to serve in the military than those who do not so identify.

“As our nation faces recruitment and retention challenges, attacking transgender people—who are more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people—is a grave mistake,” the Democrats wrote. “If service members are concerned for their health care, their right to exist, or the well-being of their children and loved ones, they cannot focus on their jobs, thereby weakening military readiness and retention rates.”

“The U.S. government should not prohibit our service members from accessing medically necessary care, especially care that is safe, effective, and supported by every major medical association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million doctors,” the letter adds. “The care transgender service members receive is essential for them to be their authentic selves and focus on their mission. Denying this access to health care would deter transgender people from joining the Armed Forces, damage retention efforts, and hurt our military readiness.”

Are these claims true?

‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Many states have passed laws banning experimental “transgender” medical interventions for minors, such as so-called puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries that remove healthy breasts or sex organs. There is no conclusive evidence that these interventions, euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care,” make life better for people struggling with gender dysphoria (the persistent and emotionally painful condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex).

Internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH, a pro-transgender activist group, revealed that the organization’s leaders knew about various side effects of “gender-affirming care,” including cancer in teens and reduced sexual function, as well as the lack of informed consent for procedures with lifelong impacts. These medical professionals endorse the experimental treatments anyway.

Some doctors have gone on record opposing such treatments. Back in 2023 in Florida, many doctors testified in favor of a rule that would prevent Medicaid dollars from funding “gender-affirming care.” The doctors—including psychiatrists, endocrinologists, neurologists, and a former WPATH leader—testified that these interventions are experimental and may do more harm than good.

“The claim that ‘gender affirming’ drugs and surgery are safe, effective, and medically necessary is a triple lie,” Jay Richards, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“The complications—some that persist for a lifetime—from these experimental procedures are notorious,” he said. “And while some individuals may report relief from symptoms of gender dysphoria in the short term, there’s no evidence that, on balance, medicalizing a therapy for a mental disorder is beneficial. And by definition, these procedures are not medically necessary—since they attempt to treat a psychological disorder with drugs and surgery that does not directly address the psychological disorder.”

“At best, sex trait motivation drugs and surgery are experimental interventions of doubtful benefit and obvious harms,” Richards added. “Subjecting service members to these experiments makes no sense either for the individuals involved or for military readiness.”

Polls have consistently found that more Americans oppose “gender-affirming care” for minors, even when framed in terms most likely to get a favorable response.

An RMG Research poll in March found that only 22% of respondents supported giving minors access to “gender-affirming care,” while 64% said they opposed it.

A 2022 Pew Research Center survey asked respondents whether they would “make it illegal for health care professionals to help someone <18 [under 18] with medical care for gender transition.” Even with this arguably deceptive framing, nearly half of respondents (46%) said they would support such a ban.

Similarly, more Americans (44%) told Pew they would oppose requiring “health insurance companies to cover medical care for gender transitions” than would support it (27%).

From these responses, it seems likely that taxpayer funding for experimental transgender interventions would prove rather controversial.

As for the idea that transgender people are “more likely to serve in the U.S. military than cisgender people,” the claim appears to trace back to an analysis of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. That survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality, found that “respondents served in the military at nearly twice the rate as the people in the U.S. population overall.” Since the proportion of the general population who identify as transgender is minuscule, this does not mean that a large proportion of veterans or service members is transgender or that the military would be handicapped without transgender recruits.

Two Senate Candidates

Two of the 162 House Democrats who signed the letter are running for U.S. Senate.

Allred is challenging Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the Lone Star State, which former President Donald Trump carried in 2016 and 2020. Cruz leads Allred by 5 points in the RealClearPolitics polling average.

“Day after day, Colin Allred shows Texas who he really is,” a spokesman for the Cruz campaign told The Daily Signal in a statement on the letter. “He is a radical who will destroy Texas and America. His record on transgender issues puts our children and families at risk.”

Gallego is running against Republican Kari Lake in Arizona, which is considered a key swing state. Gallego leads Lake by 7 points in the RealClearPolitics average.

“The fact that Ruben Gallego would try to hold up the National Defense Authorization Act to DEMAND that taxpayer money goes to sexual reassignment surgeries is a testament to how radical he truly is,” a spokesperson for Lake’s campaign told The Daily Signal in a statement Tuesday. “Gallego’s radicalism does tremendous harm to our military preparedness and puts our national security at risk.”

18 Swing-District Democrats

Eighteen House Democrats in races the Cook Political Report rates as “competitive” also signed the letter.

Reps. Yadira Caraveo, D-Colo., and Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, are running in races Cook rates as “toss-ups.”

Eight Democrats in races Cook rates as “lean Democrat” also signed the letter: Reps. Jahana Hayes, D-Ct.; Eric Sorensen, D-Ill.; Frank Mrvan, D-Ind.; Angie Craig, D-Minn.; Susie Lee, D-Nev.; Pat Ryan, D-N.Y.; Andrea Salinas, D-Ore.; and Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.

Eight more Democrats in “likely Democrat” races also signed the letter: Reps. Mike Levin, D-Calif.; Darren Soto, D-Fla.; Sharice Davids, D-Kan.; Hillary Scholten, D-Mich.; Chris Pappas, D-N.H.; Dina Titus, D-Nev.; Steven Horsford, D-Nev.; and Greg Landsman, D-Ohio.

None of these Democrats responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by press time.