I read both the long & short versions of this article. It is, in effect, merely a convoluted argument for softening our stance on abortion.

He argues that if a person votes for Biden & says he is doing so in spite of the pro-abortion stand . . . https://www.9marks.org/article/what-makes-a-vote-moral-or-immoral-the-ethics-of-voting/

2) . . . of the Dem. Party then Leeman thinks that is bad, but he insists he would not break fellowship w. the person for doing it. But if a person voted for a party that was totally racist then he would deny communion to that person b/c intentions don't matter in that case . . .

3) . . .like they do in the case of abortion. He already had made a strong & valid case that in voting, our intentions are irrelevant & it is the policies we are voting for that matter. But then he carves out an exception for abortion in pt. 8. He tries to justify this by saying:

4) "When the occasion comes that a party exists almost exclusively for the purpose of wickedness, when a particular evil becomes an entity’s raison d’etre, then at that point churches should consider excommunication for party membership or support." (Note: "should consider").

5) This is highly subjective. How do we distinguish between a party that is "almost exclusively" evil & one that is "not quite almost exclusively" evil? Where is the line? What has happened here is a substitution of a subjective evaluation of a group's intentions in place of. . .

6) . . . a focus on the objective moral status of the act in question (abortion). If a party, as a party, advocates murder unequivocally as public policy, as the Dem. Party unquestionably does, then voting for that party is always, in every situation, an intrinsically evil act.

7) The decisive point is not one's evaluation of their "true motivations" or how hypocritical they are as compared to the other party. The point is that a Xian cannot & must not ever vote for murder as public policy. To do so would, in my view, warrant excommunication.