Trump vs. Harris: How Would Spurgeon Vote?

On Politics and "The Lesser of Two Evils"

I do not know whom I should prefer, — to see one of my dear Christian brethren fall into doctrinal error, or into an un-Christian spirit. I would prefer neither, for I think this is a safe rule, — of two evils, choose neither.

—Charles Spurgeon

If you’re looking for a heavyweight in your theological corner, it’s hard to beat Charles Spurgeon. He isn’t called “the prince of preachers” for nothing. Spurgeon is well known for proclaiming Christ in the center of London, the world’s greatest city, from 1854-92.

But that’s preaching. When it comes to politics, wasn’t Spurgeon a “third-wayist”? Haven’t we all heard that he encouraged Christians to opt out of backing candidates who were clearly sinful in some way? Surely he was the original proponent of being “neither left nor right” ala Tim Keller, David French, Russell Moore, and many others today?

Was Charles Spurgeon a “Third-Wayist”?

Let me answer the above collection of questions: Charles Spurgeon was no third-wayist. It is not remotely accurate to frame him in this light. As I show in Voting and the Church, Spurgeon did not float above the political fray. As we’ll see below, Spurgeon was surprisingly active along political lines.

Nor did Spurgeon endorse “choosing neither” of the “lesser of two evils” in elections. The quotation that began this essay refers to the “two evils” of unsound thinking or unloving acting. (It comes from a sermon on Jude 24-25, and it was preached on November 7th, 1875 at the Metropolitan Tabernacle of Newington). This message was not about politics in any way, shape, or form.

In the simplest form, this quotation has been hijacked and grossly misapplied in our day. As expressed in the sermon (and quotation), Spurgeon’s burden was for the church of Christ to love sound doctrine and pursue kindness toward others. This only makes sense; though no perfect man, Spurgeon modeled these Christian traits. He was ruggedly convictional, but he had a very gracious and charitable spirit. For example, he said this in his Jude sermon:

It is sad to hear some people talk as if they alone are right, and all other Christians are wrong. If there is anything which is the very essence and soul of Christianity, it is brotherly love; but brotherly love seems to be altogether forgotten by these people…

In our day, we need a recovery of Spurgeon’s example. Love for Christians, even Christians we disagree with, is a major mark of true faith. In fact, 1 John 4:8 goes so far as this: “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” What a warning this is to us all.

Spurgeon’s Engagement of the Public Square

Back to Spurgeon. We’ve already covered how Spurgeon’s “choose neither” quotation is in no way a summons to “neither left nor right” ideology. But beyond this, we do well to give attention to how Spurgeon engaged the public square. In our time, pastors of a conservative evangelical or Reformed bent are far less interested in public witness than Spurgeon. In fact, I sense that many would be inclined to cite Spurgeon as a corroborating example of a politically-disconnected church (for he is known so well for pulpit proclamation).

Against certain lazy stereotypes, Spurgeon was far more politically involved than many might think. He was very engaged in the public square of his day, to say nothing of the broader orbit of London. In truth, he is the opposite of a Reformed pastor who views the sum total of his church’s cultural engagement as Sunday morning worship alone.

Here are four dimensions of his public witness.

First, Spurgeon was politically engaged. In Victorian England, though the pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon identified publicly with the Liberal Party as many English Dissenters did. He spoke to a wide range of issues, as esteemed historian David Bebbington has commented:

He supported measures to ensure the observance of the Sabbath; he favored restrictions on the availability of alcohol; and he offered public prayer against the appalling housing conditions of central London. In 1860 he denounced American slavery, declaring that civil war was preferable to the perpetuation of the “peculiar institution” in the South. His American publishers began to edit out references to the subject in his sermons, but Spurgeon insisted on calling slavery “a soul-destroying sin.”

As Bebbington captures, Spurgeon paid dearly for his anti-slavery stance. (He was even burned in effigy in the American South because of his remarks.) He cared little, however. His burden was God’s glory filtered through public moral action.

Second, Spurgeon called the church to fight evil. Not for Spurgeon, a quietist congregation, sitting placidly amid the storms of a fallen world. He thundered against such a prospect:

A church that does not exist to reclaim heathenism, to fight evil, to destroy error, to put down falsehood, a church that does not exist to take the side of the poor, to denounce injustice and to hold up righteousness, is a church that has no right to be. Not for yourself, O church, do you exist, any more than Christ existed for Himself.

What a marvelous summation of the church this is. We are here to be “salt and light,” not dead bones and darkness (Matthew 5:13-14). We are here to engage, not sit back. Along these lines, Spurgeon called out specific ideologies, as Larry Taunton has shown. For example, he thundered against Marxism (called “Democratic Socialism”):

For many a year, by the grand old truths of the gospel, sinners were converted, and saints were edified, and the world was made to know that there is a God in Israel. But these are too antiquated for the present cultured race of superior beings! They are going to regenerate the world by Democratic Socialism, and set up a kingdom for Christ without the new birth or the pardon of sin. Truly the Lord has not taken away the seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal … The latter-day gospel is not the gospel by which we were saved. To me it seems a tangle of ever-changing dreams. It is, by the confession of its inventors, the outcome of the period—the monstrous birth of a boasted “progress”—the scum from the cauldron of conceit. It has not been given by the infallible revelation of God—it does not pretend to have been. It is not divine—it has no inspired Scripture at its back. It is, when it touches the Cross, an enemy!

Spurgeon did not leave his people confused and defenseless in the face of godless ideologies (Colossians 2:8). He helped them think, and thus helped them live for God’s glory in a fallen world.

Third, Spurgeon encouraged Christians to vote. “Every God-fearing man should give his vote with as much devotion as he prays,” he once intoned. Nor should pastors sit elections out, as Spurgeon saw it:

“Ministers do well to give their votes and to express their opinions for the guidance of the people, but in proportion as the preaching becomes political and the pastor sinks the spiritual in the temporal, strength is lost and not gained.”

Here was both a call to arms and a warning about compromise. In Spurgeon’s mind, the pastor should vote. But not only this: he should guide his people regarding elections. His language was careful here; he identified the pastor’s words along these lines as “opinions,” not holy dictates from on high. Nonetheless, Spurgeon encouraged pastors to give guidance on major issues. I believe, personally, that this is sound, even as we must always keep watch over our political activism.

Fourth, Spurgeon founded a veritable universe of ministries. Highly esteemed biographers like Tom Nettles and Lewis Drummond have both written extensively about Spurgeon’s political and public involvement. Suffice it to say that the historical record reveals Spurgeon to be a remarkably culturally-concerned Christian leader. During his long career, the pastor created no less than sixty-six parachurch ministries to care for London’s social ills.

As just one example of his public instincts, Spurgeon founded the Stockwell Orphanage. Per this helpful article, Spurgeon preached for greater church ministry in 1866: “Dear friends, we are a huge church, and should be doing more for the Lord in this great city.” A woman named Anne Hillyard heard the call. She donated £20,000, a massive sum in that day, to begin the Stockwell Orphanage. Many decades later, the orphanage is still in existence, having helped over 35,000 orphans.

This is merely a single example of Spurgeon’s public-minded Christianity. He emphatically did not believe that all he was called to do was preach. He believed that preaching God’s truth was indeed his calling, but that the effects of the gospel went far beyond the walls of the church building. I agree with him.

Emulating Spurgeon: Four Brief Applications

Having laid this foundation, we need to return to our title question. How would Spurgeon vote in America in 2024? I will not try to put words in Spurgeon’s mouth today. The American presidential election of 2024 is occurring long after Spurgeon stalked the earth. But I will say this: for my humble part, I believe Spurgeon would urge us to vote for liberty, for the unborn, for a stable nation, for the defeat of rising Marxism in our time, for marriage, and for the natural family.

As should be clear by now, Spurgeon was no quietist. Spurgeon did not practice anything close to a “third way” model of political engagement. Spurgeon operated by the conviction that he should, as a Christian, oppose evil to the full. I believe he is an example for us in this regard. Along these lines, here are four very brief applicatory thoughts for pastors today.

First, it’s good for pastors to guide their people through political matters. Spurgeon believed that he should exercise care with regard to politics, to be sure. But he gave his people guidance on political matters. He encouraged them to vote, and vote per the biblical worldview. In these respects, I believe that Spurgeon is a good example for us. As America hangs in the balance, let us vote for life, economic liberty, religious liberty, a stable border, the natural family, and what one could call non-Marxist sanity.

Second, it’s good to avoid uncareful statements. In my little corner of things, I’m not encouraging the promotion of unblemished partisanship from the pulpit. Neither, however, should we leave discipleship over political issues to cable-TV hosts and podcasters. If we do so, that’s our fault, not the fault of sheep who need and want guidance but often do not get it from their elders.

Third, it’s good for pastors to encourage godly moral action among believers. With my prior caveat noted, I think it’s entirely appropriate for pastors to push their congregants in the direction of moral action. This moral action is directed by biblical truth, not cultural ideology. This doesn’t have to mean naming “the right candidate” in a sermon; it can mean contrasting light from darkness, and urging one’s hearers to back the light as much as they can.

Fourth, it’s good for pastors to pray for political leaders. I’m shocked at how little pastors pray for politicians and authority figures. Wherever pastors land on Sunday morning statements (and there is room to disagree here), they should obey 1 Timothy 2:1-5 and pray for those in authority over us as citizens. This is non-negotiable. It is also a very healthy way to begin engaging politics as a minister.

Conclusion

Pastors need not—and should not—allow politics to rule their church. But in my view, pastors should disciple the sheep to understand their culture and to engage it. In closing, we hear Spurgeon’s rallying cry ring out once more:

A church that does not exist to reclaim heathenism, to fight evil, to destroy error, to put down falsehood, a church that does not exist to take the side of the poor, to denounce injustice and to hold up righteousness, is a church that has no right to be.

In 2024, may we be this kind of Christian, loving God and loving neighbor. May we pray for the good of our land; may we act in any way we can, including voting, to be salt and light in this place.