Question: I often hear people (including myself) say they are making a choice for the lesser of two evils. But isn't that still choosing evil? And how should Christians make these types of decisions?
Answer: Greetings, and thank you for your question. I am in the same boat as you. I have often heard people say this and have myself said it too. I think, as with many things, context will matter as will your definition of the word "evil."
Usually, when I hear people say they're choosing the "lesser of two evils," it's in the context of political candidates. "I'm voting for so-and-so because he/she is the lesser of two evils." Before we look at context, let's define what we mean when we say, "evil."
When speaking of the word "evil," there are three ways it can be understood (two serious ways and one not-so-serious way).
- The first way to understand the word "evil" is as natural evil -- Natural evil would be things like natural disasters or things that happen that aren't intentional. This is essentially, what I like to call, the result of broken people living in a broken world. A hurricane slams the Florida coast, a tornado rips through a Nebraska town, an earthquake savages Haiti, an ocean liner hits an iceberg, an airplane crashes. These are all things we would call "evil," but there is no human agency or intentionality involved.
- The second way to understand the word "evil" is as moral evil -- If Natural Evil are unintentional disasters, then Moral Evil would be acts which are intentional and involve human agency. For example, a man goes on a shooting spree, a mother drowns her child to get it to stop crying, a group of young men rob a convenience store killing or injuring the owner, a Wall Street financier embezzles money from a retirement fund leaving many people without their savings, etc.
- The third, and not-so-serious, way to use the word "evil" is to refer to "things I don't like." I say this is the "not-so-serious" way of using the word "evil" because it's often used in political rhetoric. The label "evil" gets thrown around to refer to someone simply because they hold policy positions I don't like.
In Scripture, the word "evil," both in Hebrew and Greek, carry the same dual meaning (natural & moral evil). When Scripture warns us against "evil," it's using the moral evil sense of the word. For example:
- [9] Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. (Romans 12:9 NKJV)
- [22] Abstain from every form of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:22 NKJV)
- [9] not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:9 NKJV)
Using the sense of natural evil doesn't really make sense in those verses. How does one "abstain from every form of natural evil?" So, Scripture is clear that Christians should avoid moral evil.
If a Christian is posed with a choice that involves two morally evil options, it would seem we should avoid choosing any morally evil option. Now, I say this as a general rule. If you've ever taken a college Ethics course (as I have), you often get these moral dilemmas thrown out. They typically go like this: If presented with two choices, one which would lead to the death of one person and the other which would lead to the death of twenty people, which would you choose. I can't possibly go through all the relevant scenarios in which something like this could ever possibly come up. My point is that, as a Christian, we should avoid any actions which would be considered morally evil at all costs.
Now, as mentioned above, whenever I hear this phrase used, it's almost always in the context of politics and often "evil" is understood as "things I don't like."
Without getting too deep into politics, can we at least agree that whatever political party you prefer, there are "good actors" and "bad actors?" Politics is all about compromise (at least in the American context). Even politicians who hold to 90%+ of your personal moral and political views, will have to compromise at some point to get things done. In general, ideological purists are the ones who talk a good game, but have few (if any) actual accomplishment. The politicians who "get things done" are the ones who are compromising some principle for practical outcomes. So, oftentimes, in politics, when voting for a candidate, you're voting for someone who most aligns with your point of view, while recognizing they will disappoint you from time to time. The only other option, I suppose, is not to vote. But then, as I've heard many people say, if you don't vote, you have no right to complain one way or the other.
Let's look at a very practical example of this in the realm of politics. Most Bible-believing Christians believe that abortion is murder. For most of my adult life, abortion as been "legal" in the USA because of Roe v Wade back in 1973. In something I never thought I would see in my lifetime, Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022 and the issue of abortion was put back into the hands of the individual states. As a conservative, confessional, Bible-believing Christian, I hold an absolute view on abortion of complete abolition. There is no scenario in which abortion is not the murder of an innocent, unborn child. However, with the overturning of Roe v Wade, each state scrambled to either restrict or broaden abortion rights. In my state of Nebraska, we had a 20-week ban on abortion during Roe v Wade. When Roe v Wade was overturned, our legislature attempted to restrict that to 6-weeks (it was a "heartbeat bill"). As an abortion abolitionist, my desire is to see a 0-week restriction on abortion. I also realize that most people in Nebraska do not agree with me. What are my options? I could (a) hold to my principles on a complete ban of abortion (which would fail miserably), or (b) go along with the 6-week ban (which still allows some abortions to go through, but would reduce the number of abortions drastically). I guess this isn't a proper "lesser of two evils" scenario because I am not the one making the decision, the state legislature is, but if I were making the decision, I would choose option (b). While I understand and would respect the person who chose option (a), practically speaking, we didn't get to this point overnight, and the solution isn't going to come overnight. Politics is messy and requires compromise and sometimes settling for 60% or 70% of what you want (which is why I don't think I would ever run for politics).
Bring this to a conclusion, most moral decisions a Christian will make in his/her life will rarely present as two morally evil choices. Most life decisions a Christian makes almost always involve clear, moral choices. I'd like to think of myself as a pretty normal, average Christian, and I have never been in a situation in which I was faced with a true choice between two morally evil choices. There are times I've chosen the morally evil choice, and paid the consequences for my choice. The most I've seen "lesser of two evil" choices come up are in the realm of politics, and as I have stated, politics is a realm in which compromise rules. As a Christian, we can and should vote our conscience and let our faith inform our choices. But every politician is a "mixed bag."
I hope this helps.
