Republicans from George Pataki to sitting members of Congress to theologian Wayne Grudem have called for Donald Trump to step down as GOP presidential candidate in recent weeks.  Now, the tables have turned.  The recent announcement by FBI director, Jim Comey to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email improprieties has led to calls for her to step down as Democratic Presidential nominee.  Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, retired chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, John Kass in an editorial for the Chicago Tribune, and other pundits are among those making the call.  So, where does that leave us? Not much has changed.  No more evidence is needed to demonstrate that our political system is failing; at least one of the parties stands on the precipice of ruin, and most Americans fear for the future of democracy in this country no matter who is elected.

In such circumstances, how is one to vote?  In particular, how should Evangelicals approach this mess?  I have been intrigued by the outrage I have seen and heard expressed in this election.  Most of it has been directed toward the Republican candidate and most of it has been earned.  What has been confusing me to me has been the rather unbiblical approach of accepting the cultural designation of some sin as more egregious than others.  Trump’s comments about women are despicable, but do they rank lower than Sec. Clinton’s duplicitous classism or regular inability to speak the truth?  More importantly, why was Clinton so quiet for a week after the bombshell of the Trump audio from 2005?  The reason, I believe, was her carefully orchestrated “stand by her man” policy in the 1990s.  When repeated allegations against then President Bill Clinton came to light and more and more women came forward, she infamously hit the television news circuit with the accusation of a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”  If that was the case then, is this a “vast left-wing conspiracy” now?  Of course the answer is “no;” neither was her accusation the case then.  Both men were/are guilty of inappropriate treatment of women.  Sec. Clinton’s husband’s actions—if we are going to rank sins—seems at least as bad if not a bit worse than Trump’s.  Then there is the problem of a woman who stood by President Clinton during all of his notorious philandering.    How is it that she can now feign righteous indignation when she enabled her husband to do the same despicable things that Trump is accused of doing, and frankly, worse.  Even her supporters recognize that Sec. Clinton is driven by the pursuit of power above all else.  My point is there is no moral high ground here.  Now, please do not get me wrong.  I am not condoning or justifying any of the aforementioned wrongs.  I am simply questioning why we Evangelicals so often fall in line with the culture in evaluating such matters.

I appreciate the talk I hear from Evangelicals about the problem of conscience.  I get that and would not want to squelch it.  I would provide a few cautions, however.   First, we should not fall into the cultural practice of ranking sins.  Sin is sin, and frankly I do not see how anyone can argue that one candidate in this election is more pristine than the other.  Second, we do not have the luxury of standing aloof, washing our hands of this mess, or saying, “well, at least I kept my conscience clear.”  I would like to be able to do so, but we cannot for the reason expressed in my third point.  Third, with the vast majority of Evangelicals historically voting Republican, Evangelicals not voting or voting for a third party candidate are, in effect, providing benefit to Sec. Clinton’s bid.  I am not condemning those who choose either of those two options.  I respect the right of everyone to choose.  But if conscience is the factor, Evangelicals need to weigh the unintended results of their actions as well when they think about their conscience.

So, what to do?  For all the vitriol that Grudem has received for publicly endorsing Trump, then rescinding that public support, a portion of Grudem’s call for Trump to step down was lost in the fray.  He reminded his readers that there are “enormous differences between the candidates and the two parties, differences that I still think have great significance.”  He is right. Where the parties stand on key issues should influence our voting, especially when the candidates themselves have such problems.  In addition, Evangelicals should remember that the President represents only one branch of the government.  Our focus now should be to get our government operating again the way it was supposed to, with three fully functioning branches of government instead of just two, or I might suggest one and a half (executive branch with the judicial branch occasionally interjecting its influence).  Congress has abdicated much of its authority during the blitz of executive orders and some constitutionally suspect actions on the part of our current president.  The presidential election matters, but whoever sits in the White House does not run the government alone.   The down ticket matters and we need to be involved in those races.  Of equal importance, let us push our representatives to actively engage the president.  This will take a change in mindset for Americans, but perhaps that can be the silver lining of this election.  The party platforms matter.  In a voting quandary like this one, perhaps the parties can matter as well.