From a historian’s perspective, this is one of the oddest campaigns in the history of presidential elections. It is rare for a former president to win the presidency after losing reelection. Not even Teddy Roosevelt accomplished that. Grover Cleveland was the only person to do it in 1892. In addition, the way the sitting president bowed out of the election to make space for his vice president is unprecedented. Typically, it is difficult for a sitting vice president to win an election when the sitting president has unfavorable polling numbers. We can go back to 1968 to see this when Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for reelection, which opened the door for his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, to run. Humphrey went on to experience an overwhelming defeat to Richard Nixon. It appears, in the 2024 election, that both parties are supporting platforms more than their candidates.

Dr. Mark Draper

Further, this election is surrounded by a great deal of vitriolic dialogue. Both sides are using Manichean images of the other party. To use “Star Wars” language, each party is arguing that if you elect the other candidate, you are electing Darth Vader and the dark side while they represent the Force. In addition, there have been two assassination attempts on the GOP candidate. The last time a presidential candidate was assassinated was Robert Kennedy in 1968, during another particularly contentious time in American society. The rhetoric is always elevated in elections where the state is involved in defining what it means to be human because there is no more foundational question. We saw this in 1860 over the humanity of African-Americans and again in 1968 over women’s rights and civil rights. In this election, transgender rights and abortion are part of the debate.

All this is taking place while Americans are becoming more and more polarized. It seems that the internet, which was supposed to create a more democratic society, has instead created echo chambers controlled by algorithms. People today are more likely to create communities in their online worlds than with the people who live next door.

Considering these realities, Christian colleges can help their students formulate biblical, theological and historical perspectives. The presidential campaign season can sweep up Americans in the fervor of the Manichean worldview; perspectives can serve as an inoculation.

First, Jesus provided perspective when he was asked by the Herodians and Pharisees if it was lawful to pay the poll tax to Romans. We learn from the gospel writers that this was a set-up question to get Jesus in trouble with either the Romans or the zealots. But Jesus did not take the bait. He took the conversation to the cosmic level. He told them to give to Caesar what had Caesar’s image on it but to give to God what had His image on it. Jesus reminded the crowd that as image-bearers, their first allegiance is to God—the creator who is above all civil rulers. Jesus did not dismiss civil authorities, but he put reality in perspective. Even though Caesar had money that declared him a god, he too was created in the image of God. Jesus refused to have tunnel vision and expanded the issue; we can do the same.

Second, a church history lesson can provide perspective. The New Testament church did not have to worry about who they would vote for. Before Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity, the faith was an outsider religion, and the saints were regularly persecuted by the state. The Apostle Paul would never have worn a Make Rome Great Again hat, because Rome was trying to kill him.

It was only after the Romans made Christianity the official religion of the Empire that Christians had to negotiate agency in the city of man while being citizens of the city of God. The issue of church and state was born, and it’s complicated; there were both good outcomes and bad outcomes. Christianity influenced the West in profound ways, but Christians have not always lived out their Savior’s teachings perfectly and even took part in tragedies such as the Crusades and the slave trade. In some cases, they used their religion to justify these events. Yet, Christianity impacted Westerners to consider equal rights, civil rights and voting rights. The faith provided freedom fighters from William Wilberforce to Martin Luther King with language to attack heinous institutions.

Third, Christians need a realistic perspective. Some will feel convicted by conscience to participate in voting. They should seek candidates who best support God’s eternal principles and those who will bring the most approximate shalom to society. Yet, Christians must always remember Jesus is never on the ballot. Therefore, Christians must sort through complicated issues to decide which candidates they will support. This leads to another point. Just because Christians agree on the Nicene Creed does not mean they will decide to vote the same way. Here in the United States, we have seen this over and over, and never more starkly than in the 1860 presidential election, which led to a splintering of the nation. Often Christians can agree on doctrine, but their culture impacts how they apply that doctrine.

Fourth, colleges can help students develop an eternal perspective. On one hand, Christians can work for the good of the city by using political agency but without getting caught up in the Manichean worldview. They can vote their conscience and attempt to shape the nation based on eternal principles, but they must remember: in a fallen world, we can achieve approximate justice. For example, Christianity provided the language for the political solution to civil rights, but you cannot legislate racism away. Racism is a heart issue. It will take the Holy Spirit baptizing the hearts of believers with Galatians 3:28 to undo racism.

All this means we should have realistic expectations about what can be accomplished through political engagement. The problems in the city of man are too large for legislation alone to solve.

(Church Historian Dr. Mark Draper is Director of Library Services and a faculty member at Lancaster Bible College | Capital Seminary & Graduate School. He earned his PhD in Historical Theology from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he where he was Jonathan Edwards Fellow, along with two master’s degrees from Drexel University and Bible Seminary and a bachelor’s degree in history from Temple University. His research interests include the history of evangelicalism and 18th and 19th century evangelical social reformers and theologians such as Edwards, John Wesley and Gilbert Haven.)