With Election Day just around the corner, Americans are once again being inundated with political advertisements, campaign promises and an endless stream of commentary about the state of our nation.
While we may disagree about the candidates, the issues and the direction our country should take, I hope there is at least one thing upon which we can all agree: the importance of knowing what is true.
Unfortunately, even that seems to have become a point of contention.
Justin Addington
We always have disagreed about politics. And I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. Differences of opinion can lead to healthy debate and challenge us to consider perspectives other than our own. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have reached a point where we no longer simply disagree about what should happen in our country — we can’t even agree on what already has happened.
We live in a world where virtually any piece of information is available with a few clicks of a mouse. Yet, strangely enough, it has become increasingly difficult to determine fact from fiction.
Between social media, politically motivated news outlets and the growing use of artificial intelligence, we are constantly being bombarded with information that may or may not be accurate. And many of us have become a little too comfortable believing whatever supports our existing opinions.
As Christians, we have a particular responsibility to seek the truth, even when doing so is uncomfortable. After all, Jesus tells us in John 8:32, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
With that in mind, here are five practices that might help us become more thoughtful (and faithful) consumers of information as we prepare for Election Day.
Think critically: Don’t take everything at face value
Before entering full-time ministry, I spent several years as a public school educator. During that time, “critical thinking” was one of the educational buzzwords we heard constantly. It didn’t matter whether you taught math, English, science or music, we were expected to help students develop the ability to examine information, ask questions and arrive at informed conclusions.
The idea was simple: We were supposed to teach students how to think, not what to think.
After Hurricane Helene and the devastating flooding in Western North Carolina in 2024, an image began circulating on social media that appeared to show Donald Trump wading through floodwaters, helping victims reach safety. It was a compelling image, particularly at a time when so many people were desperate for help. Unfortunately, it wasn’t real.
The photograph had been generated by AI, and the rescue it depicted never happened.
What troubled me most was not that someone had created the image, but how readily people accepted the image as genuine. Many praised Trump for his compassion and leadership, while others used the photograph to make political arguments about the storm response.
The majority of people who shared it were neither unintelligent nor intentionally dishonest; they simply saw something that confirmed what they already believed about a political figure they admired.
That is precisely why critical thinking matters. Before accepting a claim, we ought to ask who is making it, where the information originated and whether there is credible evidence to support it. We should also consider whether we would be equally willing to believe the story if it reflected poorly on someone we admired.
Finland has received considerable attention over the last few years for its approach to media literacy. Finnish schools teach students to evaluate sources, recognize misleading information and question what they encounter online. Rather than simply telling students which sources to trust, educators help them develop the skills necessary to make those judgments themselves.
“Critical thinking does not require us to be suspicious of everyone or everything.”
Critical thinking does not require us to be suspicious of everyone or everything. It simply requires us to acknowledge that what we see, hear and read may not always be as it appears. And occasionally, it requires us to admit that we were wrong.
Do your research
As a minister, I spend a great deal of time studying Scripture. One thing I learned a long time ago is that understanding a biblical passage requires considerably more than just reading a few verses and deciding what I think they mean.
When preparing to teach or preach, I consult commentaries, I consider the historical setting and the political and social circumstances surrounding the text, and I examine different interpretations — sometimes discovering a passage I thought I understood means something quite different when considered in its proper context.
I never want to stand before a congregation and convey a biblical message without doing my homework. So, why would I approach political information any differently?
Too often, we form opinions about complicated issues after reading little more than a headline or watching a 30-second video. We may never take the time to read the full article, examine the original statement or consider what information has been left out.
And sometimes the problem isn’t that the information is entirely false; it may be technically accurate but presented in a way that is misleading.
For example, a statistic can be correct and still tell only part of the story; a politician’s statement can be taken out of context; and a photograph can be genuine but accompanied by a completely false explanation.
I recognize that reasonable people can examine the same information and arrive at different conclusions. That is one of the realities of living in a democracy. But I do think we should expect people to have some understanding of the issues about which they feel so strongly. That also requires doing your research through reputable and nonbiased sources.
History is filled with examples of individuals and institutions that were absolutely convinced they were right, only to be proved terribly wrong. Religious certainty, often fueled by misinformation and fear, has too frequently been used to justify the mistreatment and persecution of others. I sometimes wonder whether future generations will look back on the way we speak about and treat transgender individuals today with the same disbelief we feel toward those who once used their faith to defend slavery and deny women their rights.
“Having strong convictions does not necessarily mean those convictions are correct.”
Having strong convictions does not necessarily mean those convictions are correct. And just because we disagree with something doesn’t automatically make something “fake news.”
God has given us the ability to reason, question and learn. Christian voters ought to make use of those gifts.
Fact-check: Trust but verify
My grandmother was convinced computers and the internet were somehow connected to the Antichrist. I always thought that was a little extreme, although I must admit some of the things I see online these days make me wonder if she might have been onto something.
Of course, technology itself is not the problem. The internet has provided wonderful opportunities for education, communication and connection. Unfortunately, it has also made it remarkably easy to spread information that simply is not true. Sometimes the stories are so ridiculous that I cannot imagine why anyone would bother making them up in the first place.
Consider the recent claims about Texas Senate candidate James Talarico. During the campaign, Donald Trump claimed Talarico was a vegan who became sick after eating barbecue. Talarico has said he is not vegan and has publicly eaten meat. PolitiFact also found no evidence to support the story that he became ill after eating it.
I have no idea why anyone would consider a candidate’s lunch particularly important in a United States Senate race (I would be much more interested in knowing what that candidate intends to do once elected.). Nevertheless, the story was repeated in political speeches and became part of the public conversation.
If we cannot be bothered to verify something as simple as whether a politician eats meat, I wonder how carefully we are examining claims about health care, education, immigration and the economy.
Fortunately, there are several resources available to help us separate fact from fiction.
FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, examines claims made by politicians and public officials. PolitiFact, operated by the nonprofit Poynter Institute, evaluates political statements and provides explanations for its findings. Reuters Fact Check investigates misinformation, including misleading statements and manipulated images circulating online.
These organizations are not above criticism, and I would never suggest accepting their conclusions without examining the evidence they provide. But they offer a useful starting point, particularly when a story seems questionable.
We are accustomed to verifying information in most areas of our lives. If a business overcharges us, we check the receipt. If we hire someone, we check references. If we hear an unflattering rumor about a friend, we hopefully make some effort to determine whether it is true. Why should we be less careful about information that influences the future of our country?
Broaden your sources
When I was in graduate school, I remember our professors having very strict criteria regarding the sources we cited in our papers. We were not allowed to simply use Google or Wikipedia; our sources had to be peer reviewed, recently published and reflect a broad spectrum of sources.
Isn’t it interesting that we seem to work so hard to protect the accuracy and integrity of information while in school, only to take it at face value after graduation?
I suspect most of us have a favorite news source. We tend to watch programs, read publications and follow commentators whose perspectives are similar to our own. There is nothing particularly surprising about that — we naturally gravitate toward people who think like we do. The problem occurs when those voices become the only ones we hear, and social media has made this particularly problematic.
The algorithms that determine what appears in our feeds are designed, in part, to show us material that will keep us engaged. If we consistently interact with a particular political viewpoint, we are likely to see more of it. Before long, we can find ourselves living in what is commonly called an “echo chamber,” where nearly everything we encounter reinforces what we already believe.
Psychologists refer to our tendency to favor information that supports our existing beliefs as “confirmation bias.” It is a problem that affects conservatives and liberals alike.
Psychologists refer to our tendency to favor information that supports our existing beliefs as “confirmation bias.”
I would encourage those who primarily watch Fox News to spend some time reading the Associated Press or Reuters. Likewise, those who get most of their information from progressive commentators might benefit from reading thoughtful conservative perspectives. I am not suggesting every opinion deserves equal credibility or that truth must always be found somewhere in the middle. (Some claims are simply false, regardless of how passionately someone believes them.). But there is value in understanding how other people arrive at their conclusions.
One of the things I have appreciated most about serving in moderate Baptist congregations is the freedom people have to think differently about matters of faith and politics while remaining part of the same community. We do not always agree, but we have an opportunity to learn from one another precisely because we bring different experiences and perspectives to the table. I wish more of our political conversations reflected that same spirit.
Hold it up to the gospel
As Christians, we have one additional responsibility when evaluating the information we consume and the political messages we support: We should consider whether they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus consistently demonstrated concern for the poor, the sick, the hungry and those who found themselves on the margins of society. He challenged religious leaders who placed their own authority above the needs of others, and he was particularly critical of those who used religion to justify hypocrisy.
Jesus was not indifferent to the political realities of his time. His teachings had significant implications for the way people understood power, justice and their responsibilities to one another. Yet his response was not to encourage cruelty or contempt.
In Philippians 4:8, Paul encourages the church to think about whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing and worthy of praise. I wonder how our political conversations might change if we took that instruction seriously.
When we hear a politician speak, do we consider whether the message is truthful? Does it demonstrate compassion? Does it acknowledge the dignity of those with whom the speaker disagrees? Or does it depend upon fear, ridicule and resentment?
I have become particularly troubled by the hatred and vitriol that seem to have become an accepted part of our political discourse. We have grown accustomed to public figures mocking others, belittling their opponents and treating vulnerable people as little more than convenient targets. I cannot reconcile that behavior with the example of Jesus, regardless of which political party is responsible.
Recently, my senior pastor raised a question in a sermon that has stayed with me: “In a time of so much meanness and casual cruelty, where are the Christians who will embody the tenderness and kindness of God, even to their enemies?” I think that is an excellent question, particularly as we prepare to enter the voting booth.
And perhaps answering it requires us to ask a few more questions of ourselves. Are we willing to challenge dishonesty when it comes from someone we support? Can we disagree with another person without questioning their worth? Are we more concerned about winning a political argument than demonstrating the love of Christ?
Surely our faith should influence our politics, but we must be careful not to allow our politics to determine the boundaries of our faith.
Final thoughts
Sometimes I wonder what historians will make of this period in American life. Imagine a digital archaeologist 2,000 years from now discovering a collection of our social media posts and attempting to reconstruct what actually happened in the early 21st century. I suspect they would have a difficult time figuring out what was real.
That thought is amusing, but there is something rather serious behind it. The things we believe and repeat have consequences. Misinformation can damage reputations, divide communities, undermine public trust and influence decisions that affect millions of people. For Christians, seeking the truth ought to be part of our commitment to living faithfully. That does not mean we will always get everything right, but it does mean having the humility to admit when we are wrong and the willingness to learn from our mistakes.
As Election Day approaches, I hope we will all make an effort to become better informed, question our assumptions and listen respectfully to those with whom we disagree. We may enter the voting booth with different convictions, but surely we can agree that honesty, compassion and humility should transcend political loyalties.
After all, the gospel does not call us to be right at all costs. It calls us to be faithful, to seek the truth and to remember that those affected by our decisions are made in the image of God.
Justin L. Addington serves as pastor for music and worship at First Baptist Church of Asheville, N.C. He holds a bachelor’s degree in music education, a master of church music degree in choral conducting, and a doctor of theology in worship and liturgy.