If my faith necessarily informs my thinking, than do I use my faith filter to decide whom to vote for in elections and what to vote for when it comes to ballot initiatives? Yes, but there are some considerations to be made.

Greg Koukl speaks of “incrementalism.” This is the idea that to change something you work at it bit by bit. One works with others to move toward an outcome more closely reflecting his/her desired worldview. Here’s an example.

If you follow the biblical standard that human life begins at conception, then an embryo is a human being. Therefore, the idea that you develop embryos in a lab in order to harvest their stem cells, and discard that person afterwards is homicide. So, does that mean you would vote against a ballot initiative on promoting embryonic stem cell research? Yes, if you think the embryo is a human being, which is the biblical position (note: almost all biologists would also say that “life begins at conception”).

Would you then only vote for a candidate who opposes embryonic stem cell research? Here is where “incrementalism” comes in. You vote for the candidate whom you think has the best chance of getting elected and will promote the greatest good. Candidate A may reflect your values entirely and be unelectable. So to vote for him/her would only be a vote of conscience. Candidate B may support embryonic stem cell research, but may also be more likely to uphold biblical values in other areas. Candidate B also has a good chance on being elected. You go with B, who is able to promote the greater good. More tomorrow.