Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States of America, today. While there has been lots of turmoil during this election cycle which has threatened to tear communities apart, what concerns me most is how the youth of today’s church are going to process the declarations that this election was a “battle between good and evil.” According to such statements, evil apparently won.
Back in November, an acquaintance shared a screenshot of a Facebook status that read,
“The devil comes to kill (abortion), to steal (election), and destroy (America). Pray, pray.”
I remember reading another meme someone shared that said, “Heaven has a wall with strict immigration. Hell has open borders. YOU CHOOSE…”
Others wrote, “Praying for our President! He has fought so hard for our country and evil has tried to take him down at every turn. He is smart and will fight for our country!!! I love America and what President Trump has done and WILL do in his next term as President! Keep praying true American friends!”
Even before the elections, I heard and saw the concept that this election was going to be uniquely important because it was “a battle between Good and Evil,” or because America was voting between “the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness.”
I thought after election day things would calm down. I don’t think any of us really saw a close race coming, making it drag on for months.
But what I certainly did not see coming was the increased passion of the religious Right to will Donald Trump in for a second term.
Even after the long-held, democratic process of voting had ended and it was clear Joe Biden was in the lead, we heard prophecies spoken of Jesus being attributed to Trump (i.e. “By his stripes we are healed”).
Some postulated that just as Samson’s strength was found out and the Philistines mocked him and teased his downfall, only to experience him rise again and bring their destruction, so would be the fate of Trump and his apparent “defeat” of a second term.
Paula White (the pastor who helps Trump hear “what God has to say”) and other prophetic ministers claimed to have visions of angels coming from all over the world to rescue Trump and restore him to the place as President. Some claimed to have received direct words from God that the votes would be revealed to be fraudulent and Trump would be re-inaugurated for a second term.
But it all came to nothing.
Absolutely zero evidence was ever delivered to court of any wide-spread fraud that could have possibly overturned the election results. In fact, Trump’s own legal team never claimed in court that there was any fraud—that ought to have been a clue.
All of this mantra mirrored QAnon conspiracy narratives more than actual facts.
Now the question is, what are we to make of everything that was said and done in the name of Jesus during the last few months? Was there really a “battle between good and evil” going on?
If this election was as crucial for the kingdom of God as people claimed, and we prayed our hearts out that Biden would not win (and Trump would), what does it mean that those prayers were not fulfilled? Is the kingdom of God in jeopardy? Does prayer not actually “work”?
These are the sorts of questions we are forced to reckon with after going “all-in” for a mere presidential candidate as if he was some sort of messianic figure for the church in America.
To be clear, this article is not an affirmation of the Biden/Harris administration. I grew up in Republican territory. At least, if we were going to sympathize with any political party, it would have most definitely been Republican. I still lean right when it comes to political ideology.
I prefer capitalism, free trade, and decentralized government. I want abortion abolished. I don’t want government legalizing a definition of marriage inconsistent with my understanding of marriage, which is based on scripture. I’m nervous of exactly what Biden intends during his presidency. I think there are a number of policies that Biden is already working toward implementing, and will seek to implement, that grieve God. So please don’t hear me as saying “Yay, it’s a wonderful thing Biden got into office!”
This article is first and foremost about the Church. It’s about her integrity and the biblical literacy of her people.
If we weren’t before, we most definitely are now at a crossroads: are we actually serious about following Jesus, or do we prefer a modern-day Barabbas? Are we willing to go with what God calls true goodness and true evil, or are we going to go with what seems right in our own eyes?
According to what we know from God’s Word, can a presidential election actually be a “battle between good and evil”?
What does that phrase (a battle between good and evil) even mean?
Claiming something to be “good” or “evil” is not a small claim. How we understand “good” and “evil” massively shapes our reading of scripture and perception of the world. These are biblical terms, so we must not use this language flippantly. And if we are going to properly understand them, we ought to let them be defined in the way scripture defines them.
Therefore, in an attempt to help us process how we are thinking about these issues, I’m going to explore three potential interpretations of what people are saying when they refer to this presidential election as being a “battle between good and evil.” Then I will explore what scripture has to say about good and evil and the kingdom of God and let you decide if this election really was “a battle between good and evil.”
What People Mean by “Good Versus Evil”
The first way I have heard people explain this election as being about good versus evil is that when we look at the one party’s policies, more of them line up with policies God supports than policies he does not support. On the other hand, more of the other party’s policies line up with policies God abhors than policies he supports.
Of the people I’ve heard explain it this way, few of them go so far as to claim a particular party is “good” or “evil.” Rather, they mainly focus on the policies without naming specific parties.
For instance, one party supports abortion and the legalization of same-sex marriages. They advocate against Christian liberties, and ultimately, increasingly promote socialism.
The other party, however, is against abortions and the legalization of same-sex marriages. They advocate for religious liberties and, ultimately, promote capitalism.
Many of these individuals feel the overwhelming burden of Roe v. Wade, and that our country is increasingly socialistic. Because of this, they felt this election was “a battle between good and evil.”
The problem with this is that the policies evaluated are often cherry-picked.
Sure, there is one party that decisively campaigns against abortion and one party that decisively campaigns in support of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy. But republicans have yet to overturn Roe v. Wade. A truly conservative supreme court justice probably won’t ever vote to overturn the ruling because the supreme court rarely rules against past supreme court rulings. The definition of “conservative” is to maintain what has been.
Even if they did overturn Roe v. Wade, however, there are actually fewer abortions happening per year in America today than were happening before 1973 when Roe v. Wade was established.[1] Since Clinton’s administration, yearly abortions have consistently declined, seemingly unaffected by the political affiliation of the president. Actually, if anything, decline happened at a higher rate under democratic presidents—although, it is hard to say precisely whether it had anything to do with the president.
Some studies have suggested the advent of 3D and 4D ultrasounds played a role in reducing the choice to abort. Others point to better birth control, sex education, and more restrictive state laws as reasons for why the rate of abortions have decreased. No doubt the work of activists like Abby Johnson and Gianna Jessen—women who either had abortions or were born during attempted abortions—have also gone a long way in moving society toward choosing to preserve pregnancies instead of terminating them.
Drop the reality that having a democratic or republican president doesn’t really move the needle toward abolishing abortion against the backdrop of republican presidents being more likely to go to war, and one begins to wonder who really is “pro-life”? Even though Donald Trump vowed to “stop endless wars,” he has dropped more bombs in the Middle East than either Obama or Bush did in their first terms.
I doubt Biden is going to not drop bombs, since that is kind of the whole purpose of being commander in chief and the way America secures its borders. But any argument that Trump is inherently more “pro-life” than Biden seems more factually selective than actual reality.
Even more, in 1998 evangelical leaders like James Dobson and Franklin Graham were condemning Clinton for his sexual immorality. To them, Clinton’s sexual behaviors were (1) not private matters, but matters of sin, and (2) made him unfit for office unless there was true, sincere remorse and repentance.[2]
Eighteen years later, however, they have changed their tone. Donald Trump, who has thrice been married and carries a history of sexual exploitation and has never exhibited any sincere remorse about his actions—actually, even bragging about them—is now the guy they claim is God’s anointed. Dobson referred to Trump as a “baby Christian” and the one who will lead America out of the “crisis” created by the Obama administration. Graham cited Trump’s win in 2016 as a sign that “God showed up” in the elections.
But I thought sexual immorality was sin and not of God. I thought only after sincere remorse and repentance could one be fit for leadership.
When we talk about elections being battles between good and evil, are we actually looking at everything these presidents do or are we simply looking at the favorite parts of our favorite candidate and the worst parts of the candidate we like the least?
Furthermore, since when do we understand “good” and “evil” according to percentages of goodness or evilness? Robust, evangelical Christians would never consider someone to be born into the kingdom of God because their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds. Why, then, are we considering a presidential candidate to be “in-line with” the kingdom of God based on the fact that a majority of his policies seem to resemble things God cares about? It doesn’t make sense.
A second way I’ve heard this concept explained is that one candidate wants to lead the country toward that which is expressly good and the other wants to lead the country toward that which is expressly evil.
Often dove-tailed with this explanation are two main emphases. First, one candidate kills more babies than the other candidate. Secondly, one candidate will usher in the communists and the other one won’t.
The people who use this explanation seem to recognize that the candidates themselves are not necessarily good, and their policies may not even always be good. But they feel that one side in particular is especially driven towards evil. So much so, that it won’t stop at anything.
The problem with this is that it uses a narrow, twenty-first century, post WWII definition of “evil.”
We have already looked at how abortions are declining regardless of the political affiliation of the president. In light of that, what is “more” evil: continuing to allow women the choice of how to handle their pregnancies or continuing to ignore the dire economic and health predicaments these women and single-parent homes face after children are born?
Furthermore, instilling fear within the American people of a potential communist invasion was a narrative used as post-WWII (cold-war era) propaganda. At the end of WWII, the government worried about the spread of communism at home. Business interests worried about government regulations and about the rising popularity of unions. The Cold War provided both parties with a shared enemy.
The Ad Council, used to develop propaganda to get the American people onboard entering WWII in the first place, implemented the same persuasive techniques of advertising and psychological manipulation during the Cold-war years. One of their goals was to promote the virtues of capitalism and free enterprise in America while simultaneously demonizing the alternative – socialism – which was often conflated with communism.[3]
There was clear reason to fear communism: it led to tyrannical bondage and an extremely poor economy. But the fearmongering of communism came at the expense of blinding many to real problems of capitalism, such as a tendency to neglecting the poor.
In America, any kind of socialism automatically triggers the fear of communism, even though there are several countries today using a unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits which are faring quite well. The Nordic Model basically defies those who want to paint any sort of socialism as inherently destructive to economies and leading to tyranny. It essentially uses social programs to help the poor, yet keeps it within a democratic system so the people are theoretically the ones deciding how to handle the social programs.
Those who want to maintain the fear narrative of communist invasion don’t acknowledge Scandinavia as being at all socialistic. They simply point out the capitalistic parts of their economy. But economic theories and forms of government continue to evolve. It is possible to come up with new ways of implementing an economic theory that could better help the poor than mere capitalism that does not have to lead to tyranny.
While socialism as manifested in communistic regimes has historically led to bondage and oppression, scripture paints a picture of justice as being that all people in the society are thriving. Justice is not simply about punishing wrongdoers and restoring those who were wronged. Justice, according to scripture, is finding homes for the homeless, restoring the criminals themselves to whole and healthy citizens within the community, making sure the widows and orphans are properly taken care of, and bringing those indebted to us into our family rather than ruling over them with an iron rod until all debts are paid.[4] This actually sounds kind of socialistic, doesn’t it?
If we care about our government leaders implementing laws that uphold our value for life, then we ought to also care about our government implementing laws that uphold our value for caring for the poor.
My point is not to try to claim that socialism is “good” and capitalism is “evil.” Rather, I’m trying to point out how both socialism and capitalism are human theories of economics that tend to be easily manipulated by selfish players of the economy. There are aspects of capitalism that map on well to the ethics within scripture. There are aspects of socialism that map on well to the ethics within scripture. There are aspects of both that directly contradict scripture. How can we claim one is headed more decisively toward good (or evil) than the other?
A third way people may be using the phrase “a battle between good and evil” might be in that just as all of us face daily battles between “good” and “evil,” so do the candidates we elect.
As we will see in a moment, this perspective is a fair understanding of how an election could be a “battle between good and evil.” The real battle lies not in the policies of a political party, neither does it lie in the direction a particular party seems to be heading. The real battle between good and evil lies in the heart of every man and woman leading our country. Regardless of whether we are talking about die-hard capitalist Ted Cruz or progressive socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, each of them face many choices in a day to submit to God’s design or to rebel against it.
The same is true for Trump and Biden. Are they going to honor God in their theories of economics or policies concerning life, or are they going to look out for themselves? Will they do what is truly good as God defines goodness, or will they do what is right in their own eyes (which is how God defines evil)?
The problem is that out of all the claims about this presidential election being a battle between good and evil, I have not heard anyone actually articulate it this way.
Which is what leads me to the fundamental question of this article: where are we getting our definitions of “good” and “evil”?
What do we think the “kingdom of light” actually is? What do we think the “kingdom of darkness” is?
As mentioned before, this is biblical language. So, I assume when people use them that they are thinking about “good” and “evil” in ways consistent with how the Bible defines them. But that leads me to this conundrum when I see how people actually explain themselves.
The Bible does not define good or evil in any way that can be easily parsed out between political parties or particular candidates. It in no way describes someone being “in the kingdom of light” when most of their policies or ideologies line up with the ideologies of the kingdom of light. But let’s take a deeper look at this.
Good and Evil in the Bible
Genesis 3 introduces the first “battle between good and evil.” The picture is provocatively simple but carries massive implications.
Two trees bearing two separate kinds of fruit. One God with a simple word of instruction.
“Eat of every tree in this beautiful garden, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
God says all that he has made is good for life, and he has spread a feast of life before mankind and invited them to gorge, as it were, on life.
“But”—it’s a simple but, yet oh, so difficult—”trust me to decide what is good and what is evil.”
We know the story: Adam and Eve choose to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Allured by the deception of the serpent that they could be like god themselves knowing good and evil (ignoring the fact that they would also die), Adam and Eve chose not to trust God. Instead, they took defining good and evil into their own hands. They were going to make their own path of life.
This short story sets the stage and summarizes all battles “between good and evil” in this life.
A battle between “good” and “evil” does not war between two parties; we should not see the nation of Israel against all other nations as being the field of battles between good and evil. The battle was going on in the hearts of the people of Israel: were they going to trust God to decide what is good and evil, and surrender to his design, or were they going to do what seemed right in their own eyes and do as other nations do?
In chapter 4 of Genesis, we see the second “battle between good and evil.” Cain’s offering is not accepted by God, and God comes to him and asks, “Why are you angry? If you do well (good) will you not be accepted? If you do not do well (good), sin (evil) is crouching at your door” (vs. 6-7).
The picture is that Cain faces a crucial choice: be overcome with evil or be overcome with good. Evil is crouching at his door. The terminology suggests evil is something like a wild cat or lion waiting to pounce and control Cain’s mind and heart and behaviors. But Cain could do good. And in doing good, he would “rule over” the evil that threatens to destroy him.
This mirrors Paul’s exhortation in Romans 12:21 that we are not to be “overcome with evil.” Instead, we are to “overcome evil with good.”
Evil always threatens everyone.
Read that again: evil always threatens everyone.
Evil is not mitigated by aligning with a certain set of cherrypicked values. Even for those of us who subscribe to good and wholesome values such as preserving life inside the womb, not ruling over people as tyrannical dictators do, giving to the poor, refusing to take up arms against other human beings—evil reaches in even to our ranks and threatens to overtake us. Evil is not limited to only democrats. Evil is not limited to only those who don’t work hard and sponge off government aid. Evil threatens us, too.
In the same way, everyone can always overcome evil with good.
Go ahead and read that again: everyone can always overcome evil with good.
Even a democrat who is seeking ways to properly take care of the poor and the single woman who finds herself pregnant, even he can overcome evil with good. Within his ranks, he can fight for ethics that align with the ethics of Jesus—and it doesn’t necessarily demand that he subscribe to different political affiliations or theories of economics.[5]
So can a republican who cares about paying off the federal debt or preserving life inside the womb fight within his ranks for ethics that align with the ethics of Jesus.
The battle between good and evil is a battle the runs down the heart of mankind regardless of political affiliation, religious preference, professional expertise, or set of core values.
Mankind is being overcome by evil when he lives according to what is “right in his own eyes” (Deut. 12:8, Judg. 17:6).
Mankind is being overcome by evil when she postures to maintain political control, as King Saul did in taking on the priestly responsibility of offering sacrifices before going out to war (1Sam. 13:8-15).
Mankind is being overcome by evil when he delights in things that are not his to delight in, as King David did in lusting after Bathsheba (2Sam. 11:1-5).
Mankind is being overcome by evil when she neglects the poor and vulnerable in her community or refuses to uphold justice in her society (Ps. 82:3, Is. 1:17 & 58:6-7, Amos 2:6 & 5:24).
Mankind is being overcome by evil when he strives with his brothers, lives out of jealousy, scrambles to get the best at the Lord’s table, divorces his spouse, or lives from a proudful heart (2Co. 12:20, 1Co. 11:20-22, Matt. 5:31-32, Js. 4:1-6).
Any attempt to delineate “good” and “evil” into compartments such as if someone adheres to a certain set of principles they are innately “good” or innately “evil” is to completely misunderstand how the Bible defines the “battle between good and evil.”
We can never see someone approve of a truly “good” policy and assume they, themselves, are truly “good” or that they are a part of the truly “good” kingdom and will only promote “good” in the world. They may also do something quite evil.
A Biblical Understanding of the Kingdom of Light and the Kingdom of Darkness
Some of our misunderstanding of the “battle between good and evil” comes from a misunderstanding of what the kingdom of light actually is.
We tend to think about “kingdom” in terms of how we know them according to our human ways. It is far too easy for us to look for physical parameters of the kingdom of God instead of understanding how the Bible describes the parameters of the kingdom of God.
If we’re not careful, we begin to synchronize the kingdom of God with Christendom. This how societies become “Christianized:” christian values are coerced onto people who do not necessarily hold those values from a place of faith in Jesus and desire to submit to his design, but rather because it has become the law of the land.
We ought not to think that just because abortion was illegal in the United States before 1973 that means somehow the USA valued life more or was more “a part of” the kingdom of God.
The kingdom of God (or the kingdom of light, as it is sometimes referred to) is all or any of creation when submitted to Jesus as King and functioning according to his design. The kingdom of darkness is creation in rebellion against Jesus as King and refusing to function according to his design.
It is important to understand that scripture only ever defines two kingdoms: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world (or the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness).
Consider Daniel 4:17, “the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of men” (emphasis added). Or Colossians 1:13, “He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,” (emphasis added).
Perhaps Paul’s allusion to our wrestling against “principalities” (Eph. 6:12) or John’s reference in the King James Version to the “kingdoms of this world” becoming the “kingdoms of our lord” (Rev. 11:15) give the impression that there are multiple kingdoms being discussed in scripture. However, Paul is referencing demonic powers and rulers that play the role of adversaries against God and his people. These principalities exist and rule over the “domain of darkness” or “kingdom of this world.” And the Revelation reference is only referred to in the plural in the King James and New King James versions.
The overarching theme of the Bible is that there are two kingdoms: the one where people have submitted to God’s rulership and the one where people have rebelled against his rulership.
Ultimately, God is King! And he will one day sit enthroned on high above everyone, bringing judgment upon those who have rebelled and salvation for those who have submitted (Ps. 2, Rev. 19:6-8).
The nations of this earth are mere partitioning’s of the kingdom of darkness. It’s like children playing “house” within their home. The real, big, weatherproof home is the kingdom of God. The little makeshift houses made of blankets over chairs are the little portitioning’s of the kingdom of this world.
Mankind thinks it has power and authority and, as long as we don’t look up, things appear as if we actually do. But God is the only one with true power and authority. Currently, he holds back judgment because of his everlasting mercy and grace (Ps. 103:17 & 136:4, Heb. 9:27, Matt. 12:36-37).
Donald Trump is a man who continues to fiddle with power in the domain of darkness. Likewise, Joe Biden is a man who fiddles with power in the domain of darkness.
Both have inaugurated their presidencies with executive orders to quickly push their agendas onto the people they purport to care about. For each president, there are aspects of their executive orders that guise as true care. But also for each president, hidden within the executive orders are selfish ambitions they seek to push through without any accountability.
So, Was This Presidential Election a “Battle between Good and Evil”?
The “battle between good and evil” during this election cycle did not lie between choosing Trump or Biden as president. It did not even lie between choosing a Republican majority senate or a Democrat majority senate.
The “battle between good and evil” during this election cycle lay squarely at the feet of the church: were we going to make allegiance with Jesus as King, or were we going to make allegiance with our “Barabbas”?
You see, Barabbas was an insurrectionist. Don’t think of January 6 insurrectionist. Think of “God’s chosen people physically and violently revolting against a political party because they believed that is how the kingdom of God would be ushered in” insurrectionist.
Barabbas was a radical for God’s people. He embodied what too many in Israel believed the Messiah would look like. He boldly opposed the Roman government, even murdering people in his fight to take down their rulership.
Barabbas tapped into the ways of this world for how to fight the “battle between good and evil.”
Only, he and his fellow Jews did not realize that by tapping into the ways of the world they were being “overcome by evil” itself.
I fear too many of us in the church have tapped into the ways of this world in trying to fight “the battle between good and evil.”
We have scrambled for political power, vilifying our opponents in the process—even when they, themselves, are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Yes—the year has been full of battles between good and evil.
But these battles between good and evil were not the battle between the progressive Left and the conservative Right.
They were not the battle between those who voted for Trump and those who voted for Biden.
Neither were they the battle between Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter, urban ideologies and rural ideologies, or capitalism and socialism.
The year has been full of battles between whether each of us will trust that what God calls good is truly good. . .even when it feels like it’s flirting with socialism, and that what he calls evil is truly evil. . .even when calling it such will get us painted as “bigoted conservatives.”
Are we going to submit to Jesus as King? Or will we continue to pander for a Barabbas?
Just as I prayed for President Trump, President Obama, and President Bush, I will be praying for President Biden that he would chose the path of life. I pray that he would chose wisdom and not foolishness, that God will bring people into his inner group that point him to the ways of Jesus. I will beg God for mercy, that Biden himself may come to faith in Jesus if he does not already have it. I will seek to respect him as best I can, and I will speak Truth to him, over him, and about his leadership when such is necessary.
Nothing changes in my allegiance or affections in light of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking office. My fears shift. My plans change a bit. But I lift all of this to Jesus my King, trusting that he watches over me and keeps me and my family no matter what the next four to eight years bring.
I realize that my King has not promised political power to my people. In fact, he’s promised political hardship (John 16:33, Matt. 10:19).
I also realize that my King is in the process of restoring all things to himself—even earthly politics (Is. 9:6 & 32:1).
Evil has actually already lost. So, I will seek to do what I can to be an ambassador for my King, proclaiming his Gospel and kingdom, even when it demands that I give my body as a sacrifice (2Co. 5:20, Ro. 12:1).
What do you say, will you join me?
How have you understood people’s references to this election being a “battle between good and evil”? Do you agree with them? What questions does this article answer for you? What questions does it raise? Share in the comments below.
Hey, thanks for reading! We create articles to help young adults reconcile their human experiences with God and His Word. As a part of this, I am pursuing a bachelor’s of biblical studies degree.
If you would like to support the ongoing work of the blog and my biblical studies, you can do so for as little as $5/month through our Patreon membership program. As a part of the program, you gain access to further resources to help take your journey a little deeper. Click the button below to learn more.
[1] For more on this, see https://www.holypost.com/post/abortion-video-transcript-w-citations and https://www.holypost.com/post/the-abortion-video-responding-to-responses.
[2] See http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/character.html and https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB904162265981632000.
[3] See https://theconversation.com/how-socialism-became-un-american-through-the-ad-councils-propaganda-campaigns-132335.
[4] See Isaiah 58, Luke 14, Deuteronomy 15, and Exodus 21.
[5] I, personally, believe disciples of Jesus are citizens of an entirely different nation that demands our full allegiance. I’m not entirely sure how we are to interact, then, with earthly governments we find ourselves living in. But my point here is that living in the kingdom of light transcends human political parties. Righteousness and justice are to be lived out in every decision. We can’t just assume because we may be Republican and capitalists that all our decisions will inherently be righteous as just. Neither should we assume that because someone may be Democrat or socialist that all their decisions will inherently be evil.
