Christians in the Age of Trump: A Contrasting View
Image
Donald Trump rose to power amid controversy. Two and a half years into his administration, there is no sign that’s ever going to change. No doubt, he’ll continue to be a controversial figure long after his administration has moved into the history books.
I agree with much of what Greg Barkman had to say on the topic yesterday, particularly the negative assessments of President Trump’s character and behavior. I agree also that some of the President’s policies have been helpful to the nation and sensible in the eyes of conservatives. I concede, too, that in an election, deciding what candidate to support can be difficult—especially if we only consider those who have a chance of winning. If we accept that constriction, we’re stuck with what the parties decide to offer us.
Those are the primary points of agreement. Philosophically, I’m sure we agree on much as well. Most of the controversy among conservative Christians has to do with how to apply principles we share. Still, these principles are often not articulated in the more Trump-friendly perspectives I hear from fellow-Christians. I believe that if these truths are more front-of-mind, they’ll have more influence on how we evaluate presidents and make electoral choices.
1. Christian perspective is long and deep.
I’m using the word “Christian” in this post in a particular sense: not “the way Christians actually are,” but rather, “the way Christians ought to be,” that is, the way we are when we’re true to what Christianity is.
When I say the Christian perspective is long, I mean that Christian thought always puts now in the context of the whole story of humanity—which is God’s story. So our analysis of consequences should be quite different form the analysis that is normal in our culture. Rather than, “If we do X today, what will happen tomorrow?” Christians should think, “If we do X today, where does that fit into eternity?” From there, we work backward to the present: “What’s the consequence generations into the future? What’s the consequence in twenty years?” Admittedly, we often can’t answer those questions. But it gets easier when we get down to, “What impact does this have in a decade? Or in eight years?”
But I think we rarely start our analysis of consequences with the question of eternity. How will my choices in this moment matter when all this is over? (and they will matter—Matt. 12:36, 2 Cor. 5:10). When it comes to public policy and elected officials, we just about as rarely consider political outcomes a couple of election cycles down the road. This is a failure to look through the Christian lens.
The Christian perspective is long. It’s also deep. When we’re looking at things Christianly, we’re not only driven by our relationship to the God who sees the end from the beginning, but also to the God who sees and knows the real essences of things and is never fooled by mere appearances (Heb. 4:13, among many others).
The deep perspective takes some work. “Man looks on the outward appearance” (1 Sam 16:7), and by default, surface realities are what’s most real to us. But at the current political moment, we’re called to look past both the bashing of left-leaning punditry and the cheerleading of right-leaning (or right-off-the-edge!) punditry to sift out what’s really factual and wise. We’re called to tune out the noise and dazzle and hype, and read thoughtful, reflective considerations of the issues we face in our times.
2. Christian ethics looks beyond results.
Genuinely Christian ethics does include results when evaluating the rightness or wrongness of actions. “Love does no harm to a neighbor” (NIV, Rom. 13:10). “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (ESV, Rom. 14:21).
But outcomes are not the only consideration, or even the primary consideration. This is because everything a Christian does is personal. Worshipful service of our Creator is supposed to be an ever-present motivational layer in all we do (Rom. 12:2). The apostle Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 6:16 that Christian sexual ethics is not only driven by the goal of holiness but by the fact that Christ Himself is joined in some way to everything we do. Elsewhere Paul describes his own motivations in life as a drive to “please” a real person—Jesus Christ, whom we call Lord (2 Cor. 5:9).
Whatever else we might say about Christian ethics, we have to acknowledge that what ultimately determines right and wrong from our perspective is how Somebody feels about it. This shatters the popular utilitarian reasoning that whatever brings about the greatest good for the greatest number is the morally right thing to do.
Because Christian thought takes the long and deep view, we know that discerning what really brings about the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run is often impossible to know. Because we evaluate our choices through a personal grid—the good pleasure of our God—human good isn’t even mainly what interests us.
It’s possible to accept all that and still believe that a Christian should (a) vote only for a candidate that can win, and (b) vote for the least objectionable candidate that can win. But there’s a lot of thinking and evaluating that should happen before we even get to that point. In the long, deep, and Personal analysis, what really constitutes “winning”?
3. Christian values emphasize persuasion over coercion, understanding over compliance.
If we managed to put the ideal candidate in office—one who lacks all the character and conduct negatives of a man like Donald Trump—there’s still only so much he could get done, and only so much that would survive the next swing of the electoral pendulum. There’s only so much external constraints can accomplish.
Christian thought understands that faith in God-revealed truth is eternally transforming (Rom. 10:9-10, 17). There isn’t anything on earth more mighty than genuine Christian faith, because that faith is a heart-soul-mind surrender that permanently entwines us with the Creator God.
No law, or set of rules, or series of court decisions can do that.
And even on the time-bound plane of social concerns and public policy, only winning hearts and minds—genuinely persuading people of enduring truths—can produce changes that endure through election cycles.
A president who can get some policies enacted but who does it in a way—and from an ethos—that closes minds to important ideas and values may well do more harm than good. On the other hand, a president who is opposed to Christian views of society and justice (as those on the left are) but who provides a clear and sharp contrast with the ideas at the core of both conservatism and Christianity, may unwittingly persuade many to reject leftist beliefs.
To sum up, none of us really knows beforehand what the long and deep outcomes of a presidential election are going to be. We often don’t even know that years afterwards, with much confidence. What Christians should do then, in the electoral ethics department, is ask ourselves what pleases our God. And though that also doesn’t make the decision obvious, it does change the equation. We know that our Lord is at least as interested in how we get somewhere as He is in where we arrive.
“…for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light” (Eph 5:8).
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
Aaron, I expected I would probably disagree with the column you announced yesterday. Actually, I find myself in substantial agreement. I guess the difference occurs in how we apply these excellent principles to the present political situation.
G. N. Barkman
An important reminder:
There’s only so much external constraints can accomplish.
"The Midrash Detective"
Compare him to Obama.
Did Obama lie regularly (you can keep your doctor… I heard about that when I read the paper…)
Did he appoint people who made godly choices?
Did Obama have affairs? How do you know one way or the other?
Did Obama ridicule opponents?
Did Obama tell the truth when asked?
Did Obama appoint people to the judicial bench who would promote godly justice?
What was Obama’s past? Reefer bus…
On and on… really look at him in comparison to Trump. How far apart are they? Don’t just go off of what CBS and MSNBC tell you. Really look. I suspect you’ll find they are not that far apart.
@Mark… I don’t see Obama as relevant. Unlike Trump, he had an actual political philosophy and an agenda consistent with it. For that reason, he was never someone I considered voting for.
My topic in the post was how to approach weighing options as a conservative Christian voter.
@Greg, yes it’s certainly possible to apply the principles differently. Most of the arguments I see for backing someone like Trump, though, are focused on results—and short-term, superficial, and coercive ones at that. With those removed, there isn’t much left to commend a vote for Trump. It becomes a toss up, at best.
I didn’t find it difficult at all to vote for a man who couldn’t win in 2016, because I had a very different idea of what a win for conservatism could actually mean in that election.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Mark_Smith]Compare him to Obama.
Did Obama lie regularly (you can keep your doctor… I heard about that when I read the paper…)
Did he appoint people who made godly choices?
Did Obama have affairs? How do you know one way or the other?
Did Obama ridicule opponents?
Did Obama tell the truth when asked?
Did Obama appoint people to the judicial bench who would promote godly justice?
What was Obama’s past? Reefer bus…
On and on… really look at him in comparison to Trump. How far apart are they? Don’t just go off of what CBS and MSNBC tell you. Really look. I suspect you’ll find they are not that far apart.
It is certainly interesting that about the best a lot of people can seem to do to defend Trump is to compare him to someone they consider worse. Not only is such a comparison meaningless from a logical standpoint but in this case, it is hardly fair to suggest Obama may have had affairs with not a shred of evidence and bring up a reefer bus reference (as if that defines him).
However, if we have to make this about comparisons, I will say this. I am just not sure what one can say to convince those who can’t see the new lows that Trump has brought the presidency through his juvenile actions and words. Here is the truth in a nutshell: in spite of his problematic beliefs, Obama acted with dignity almost all the time; Trump rarely does. Obama may have lied some (though I don’t think your example is a lie regardless of how many times FoxNews says it is) and Trump lies thousands of times in obvious ways where he clearly doesn’t even care if he is caught lying.
Obama was the most recent. Man you guys…. Really compare him.
My point is if you really look, Trump is actually more honest. He shows you what he really thinks, while others hide it.
For example, Trump yesterday called the British ambassador “wacky.” You might say that lacks decorum, and you would be right. Who cares? Obama (picked because he was the last president and my memory is better, not because I am a raving anti-Obama type) was recorded multiple times saying all kinds of unkind things about his opponents in private fund raisers….
My point, ultimately, is if you think Trump is bad, you are a hypocrite for not seeing the bad in previous presidents. There is little difference between Trump and them other than your opinion.
For conservatives, Reagan was the last Republican president that had a consistent philosophy that was based on his thought. Both Bushes were establishment more than conservative. We can see that now. I actually think Trump is doing a respectful job with his government work. I only wish the Republicans the first 2 years had supported him better rather than joining the Russia train and the 50+ retiring and not running for reelection. Congressional Republicans failed him.
When it comes to Democrats, they are all about philosophy, and that is what is so scary about them! They mean to remake America in their image. No thanks. I have no respect for their philosophy and I give them no points for it.
I agree with Mark Smith quite a bit. For all this anxiety about how a conservative Christian voter should think of Trump, of course he’s a blowhard and often behaves with an appalling lack of grace.
But, go ahead and name one Democrat you would rather have instead of Trump the way they are right now. Can you name just one? Name one, even one “moderate” Democrat you would vote for who would dare to not follow their current extreme leftist lemming culture.
Also, name one president whose overall policies didn’t have problems or influenced negative consequences down the line. Name one president who made every decision out of principal and ignored political expediency.
Please name one. We’ll wait.
At THE end of the day in the 2020 election its either Trump with at least some chance at conservative values being enforced and promoted OR a vote towards open borders, giving illegals free this & that, trillions of dollars going to pay off student debt, the Green New Deal thinking, hyper-triggered snowflakes, and (insert your favorite socialist American value sucking program here).
And Yes, a vote for someone other than Trump IS a vote for the Democrats because who other than Trump has any chance of defeating whatever candidate the Democrats put out against him?
As conservative Christians and Americans it would be ideal if our president was a true born again Christian and would follow Biblical and conservative principles with every single decision. But, that isn’t what we’ve got and even in our country that will not happen … . ever.
So, at the moment, we are left with either Trump or … .
From my perspective, Trump, with all his flaws, is doing an overall good job as president. He gets things done. Further, you know he is an American and cares about America. After all, this is America, right?
I may be holding my nose while I vote for Trump in 2020, but I will be voting for him.
mmartin, you understand the situation exactly as I do. Anyone who fails to vote for Trump will be helping a left-wing candidate be elected. Politics, unfortunately, is almost always about how to prevent the worst results.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]mmartin, you understand the situation exactly as I do. Anyone who fails to vote for Trump will be helping a left-wing candidate be elected. Politics, unfortunately, is almost always about how to prevent the worst results.
It’s funny. I didn’t vote for President Trump in ‘16, and I was told by many that I was helping Hillary win the White House. This binary thinking is simply not accurate.
It’s funny. I didn’t vote for President Trump in ‘16, and I was told by many that I was helping Hillary win the White House. This binary thinking is simply not accurate.
Ditto. The person I voted for has proven to be a disappointment as well, and maybe I did ‘waste’ my vote, but I can pillow my head knowing that I refused to vote for either of the two major players with all of their accompanying baggage.
If President Trump acted more like a President and less like an obnoxious and immature child, it would help him immeasurably. But I think that’ll happen when pigs fly, and it may cost him the Presidency in 2020 if the Democrats can just nominate someone who isn’t utterly crazy. I agree that the current list of Democratic contenders leaves…tons…to be desired. Maybe Howard Schultz is that man. I don’t know. Right now I’m leaning towards voting for Godzilla.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[GregH] I am just not sure what one can say to convince those who can’t see the new lows that Trump has brought the presidency through his juvenile actions and words.
Two points:
- We all know Trump had affairs (pre-White House)… but as far as we know he hasn’t stepped to this “low”
- See Kennedy: All the President’s women and specifically Mimi Alford (White House intern): “That afternoon she was invited to what she thought was a “welcome-to-the-staff get-together” that turned out to be in the White House’s family quarters. “Would you like a tour of the residence, Mimi?” the president asked. And then, ushered into Mrs. Kennedy’s bedroom to admire the décor, she was a goner. … “Once Upon a Secret” includes a couple of truly vile episodes in which the president humiliated Mimi by telling her to service other men sexually.”
Why is it not accurate to conclude that a vote removed from Trump does not help his opponent? That seems like pretty straight forward mathematics to me.
G. N. Barkman
[Dave White]Two points:
- We all know Trump had affairs (pre-White House)… but as far as we know he hasn’t stepped to this “low”
- See Kennedy: All the President’s women and specifically Mimi Alford (White House intern): “That afternoon she was invited to what she thought was a “welcome-to-the-staff get-together” that turned out to be in the White House’s family quarters. “Would you like a tour of the residence, Mimi?” the president asked. And then, ushered into Mrs. Kennedy’s bedroom to admire the décor, she was a goner. … “Once Upon a Secret” includes a couple of truly vile episodes in which the president humiliated Mimi by telling her to service other men sexually.”
Speaking for myself, the lows I refer to are not the womanizing. I am referring to the fact that the guy speaks and acts like a 4th grader and is the laughing stock of pretty everyone important in the world from his own staff to world leaders.
Anyone interested in commenting on the whole concept of evaluating the ethical choices by something other than short term results … or other than “results” at all?
- Not in dispute: that voting for someone unelectable indirectly helps the worst electable candidate win
- In dispute: that this result is the only criterion that matters
- In dispute: that this result is the most important criterion among others
- In dispute: that the voter is morally responsible for secondary outcomes when he/she is presented with two bad options and refuses to select one
I categorically reject the idea that if someone presents me with two bad choices and says “Pick one or I’ll pick,” that I’m responsible for what happens if I say “no, thanks.”
Some things that don’t matter:
- Whether Trump is or more less honest than some other past president or candidate. This would be relevant if someone was claiming Trump is the most dishonest president ever. I’m not making that claim. I imagine someone does make that claim, but that’s not a view I’m at all interested in.
- Whether Bush and others had a conservative political philosophy as well developed as Reagan’s. This would be relevant if someone was claiming that Trump shouldn’t be supported because his political philosophy isn’t as fully developed as Reagan’s. Some probably make that claim. My own view is that Trump believes in very little at all beyond fighting, “winning,” proving how great he is, increasing his own power, and disrespecting everyone who disagrees with him. This is quite different from saying “has a political philosophy not quite as well thought out as Reagan’s”!
- Whether Bush et. al were conservatives or “establishment.” This is a false disjunction to begin with, but supposing that these men were scored zero on the conservatism scale, what relevance would that have? This proves Trump is better because he scores a bit better? This would require a truncated conservatism scale: one that completely ignores character and credibility. If we suppose that’s the scale, I can say sure, it’s relevant and it’s possible that Trump wins.
But this is not the sort of scale I use and I deny that this is really a conservative scale at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
In some ways, it can be better to have a pres. who makes no claim to evangelical faith. Because the office is so high-profile, people automatically associate many of presidents’ views and behaviors with whatever faith he claims. So one advantage of a non-professing pres. is that the faith is not potentially harmed by association with what he does.
On the other hand, if a pres. has a deeply Christian (as opposed to vocally/ostentatiously Christian) framework for his conduct and interactions as well as his policies, he can be a credit to the faith, at least in some ways. We’ve had some presidents who, while being weak in some ways, were a credit to the faith, I believe.
As for Trump, I wish he claimed neither Christianity nor conservatism. They’re both better off without association with him. It would be more honest and less complicated to just cast himself as “A guy who wants to defeat the libs and their policies—according to what I believe them to be…. and defeat anything else I think is bad for America.”
I would feel a lot more open to backing him that way. Really would. Still probably couldn’t quite do it, but that kind of transparent simplicity would be truer to both the electorate and to himself.
So I have to backpeddle a little bit maybe on what I posted above: I think it’s possible that there is one thing Trump really believes in besides fighting and his own greatness: he may well truly believe in “opposing whatever is bad for America, as I see it.” I’m open to that. And that’s something, at least.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] As for Trump, I wish he claimed neither Christianity nor conservatism.
I literally know NO Christian that thinks Trump is one.
[Dave White]I literally know NO Christian that thinks Trump is one.
I know a number of Christians who think Trump is one, but I don’t think that’s the greatest concern even if it is somewhat disheartening. More concerning to me is that non-Christians see Trump claiming to be Christian and I believe it gives Christianity a very bad representation in the eyes of literally the whole world. I’m not sure that whatever gains were to be had by electing Trump are worth this.
I held my nose and voted for Trump in 2016 mainly because I hoped for conservative court appointments, and I also assumed he would become more presidential once he became president. I’m happy with the court appointments, but almost everything else has been a major turn-off to me. If there is a Democrat who is even half-way decent in 2020 I’ll be voting for them, or more likely not voting/third party voting.
I also agree that it is not a vote for Hillary to refrain from voting for Trump. I will never understand that logic or lack thereof.
This is actually an easy one to answer and I am shocked how many don’t get it. It is connected to what it called “plunking” in a multiple vote contest. When an election is “Choose two of the following” in which the two highest vote getters are elected, choosing two actually harms a candidate. If you vote for Joe and Bill, and your neighbor votes for Joe and Jim, you hurt Bill by giving him Joe a second vote that enabled him to have more votes than Jim or Bill. So in a “Choose 2” election, you only choose the one you really want to get elected (unless there is a strong preference).
So in a two candidate race (“Choose One”), if you there are ten people who vote for Joe and ten people who vote for Bill, and you vote for Jim out of principle, you cost either Joe or Bill the election because your vote would have given one the deciding vote. So to not vote, is to vote, just like not choosing is choosing something. The question is, Is there a better option between two candidates, even if both are substandard? Almost always, the answer is yes.
Some will be quick to point out that no state was decided by one vote. But that is to miss the point entirely. And yes there are states where the voting is so one-sided that a person can legitimately make a “protest” vote. I have done it. But there is a bigger picture going on.
I am convinced that there are a number of well-meaning people who are, dare I say, selfish. Their own idealism actually hurts the country and community they live in by refusing to vote wisely. They have satisfied themselves while hurting others. I think civics and voting is about more than us as individuals. It is about our community, our so-called social contract with one another to pursue a better society. When one votes only for themselves, it is a dangerously selfish thing to do.
This is actually an easy one to answer and I am shocked how many don’t get it. It is connected to what it called “plunking” in a multiple vote contest. When an election is “Choose two of the following” in which the two highest vote getters are elected, choosing two actually harms a candidate. If you vote for Joe and Bill, and your neighbor votes for Joe and Jim, you hurt Bill by giving him Joe a second vote that enabled him to have more votes than Jim or Bill.
So in a “Choose 2” election, you only choose the one you really want to get elected (unless there is a strong preference).So in a two candidate race (“Choose One”), if you there are ten people who vote for Joe and ten people who vote for Bill, and you vote for Jim out of principle, you cost either Joe or Bill the election because your vote would have given one the deciding vote…Some will be quick to point out that no state was decided by one vote. But that is to miss the point entirely. And yes there are states where the voting is so one-sided that a person can legitimately make a “protest” vote. I have done it. But there is a bigger picture going on.
We don’t have the voting power to swing a hypothetical election because not all Christians (or Evangelicals or Fundamentalists or even Independent Baptist Fundamentalists) have the political power to do so. I’d argue that between the popular vote in the states and the Electoral College, the voting is already so one-sided that protest votes are almost required. It’s why I keep holding out hope for a legitimate third party to form, although I seriously doubt one will.
So to not vote, is to vote, just like not choosing is choosing something. The question is, Is there a better option between two candidates, even if both are substandard? Almost always, the answer is yes.
You’ve made my point exactly, but I’ll return to that at the end of this post.
I am convinced that there are a number of well-meaning people who are, dare I say, selfish. Their own idealism actually hurts the country and community they live in by refusing to vote wisely. They have satisfied themselves while hurting others. I think civics and voting is about more than us as individuals. It is about our community, our so-called social contract with one another to pursue a better society. When one votes only for themselves, it is a dangerously selfish thing to do.
I don’t think this is aimed at me, but as I said before, I will stand before God and say that neither of the two candidates met the kind of standard that I’d like to see in political leaders. I don’t see either candidates (in 2016 or again next year) being the kind of person that I want running the government. Are there some that are more acceptable than others? Sure, I’d take Romney in a heartbeat over anyone else currently running. But if the options are someone who can’t handle classified information and someone who brags about sexual assault and has multiple affairs on his record, I can’t trust them with much more than what I can personally watch them doing, and not even that.
This argument seems to boil down to “you must drink poison” or “you must shoot yourself in the head”. It is wise and right to say “I will do neither”.
I should also note that in most modern countries this isn’t even a discussion worth having. So we are exceptionally (un?)fortunate.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
It’s why I keep holding out hope for a legitimate third party to form, although I seriously doubt one will.
I agree on both.
I will stand before God and say that neither of the two candidates met the kind of standard that I’d like to see in political leaders
This is my point. I don’t want to be too blunt, so forgive the directness and don’t read too much into it, but this view says, “I am the only one that matters.” There seems no concern for the society around and the future for our children and grandchildren. Again, don’t take that too personally because it is not intended, but this statement is exactly what I am addressing. When we enter that voting booth, it is not just us. We have a civic duty to those around us to preserve something for the future, to take another run at it.
Take judges and justices for example: How can we say to our children and grandchildren, “I know we have judges who have moved us drastically towards the left and we had a chance to do something different but at least I satisfied myself”?
Sometimes the right answer is save enough for another day. It isn’t kill it and walk away.
Drinking poison or shooting yourself in the head might be a good analogy. If you drink poison, it is slower and it gives a chance for an antidote to be provided. Shooting yourself in the head rules out the chance for an antidote in the future. So it is wise to take the option that provides the best chance at a future in which change might be affected.
Or perhaps another analogy: You go to the doctor and he says you have incurable cancer. We can do nothing and you have six months to live. Or we can treat it and give you five years and perhaps in five years there will be a cure for it. Or there might not be and you will die in five years. Which would you take? I would imagine the five years right? At least it gives you a chance.
I do agree that most countries don’t have this discussion. Which makes the hatred of “nationalism” all that much more weird to me. It seems that there are a great many who want to make the US just like countries where this isn’t even an option.
As I said on the prior thread, voting is not the same as endorsing. Once Trump made his promise to appoint conservative judges (a promise he kept), it made a clear enough distinction between the two 2016 options to pull in enough of the reluctant Trump vote. The fact is, had enough idealist voters won the day and still refused to vote for Trump, then Clinton would have won and the Supreme Court would right now be lost for the next 20+ years instead of currently being a 5-4 conservative majority. The lower courts would also have been restocked with young socialists instead of the conservatives Trump has put in those vacancies. Politics is not chess where you give up a pawn and bishop planning for 5 moves down the road where you think you might gain a castle and a knight. There would have been no point to throwing away the courts for the rest of many of our lifetimes on some idealistic principle that somehow it might work out eventually for some better good. Not when there was a promise given for conservative court appointments.
Voting is not endorsing. It is simply getting the best you can with what options you have. There is no reason anyone should wrestle with feelings of guilty conscience over voting for a candidate who cannot be personally endorsed. 2016 presented perhaps the two worst options for president ever—in terms of personal integrity, morality, and fitness for the office. I could not and would not endorse either candidate, but I voted for what might be possible—more conservative federal courts, and that is what we received, for which I am thankful. And because I voted in the state of Virginia, my vote counted for nothing anyway, as all 13 electoral votes went to Clinton.
Larry I somewhat agree with what you are saying but one must vote before God as an individual. Sure I would like to stop the leftward move of the country as much as you but I’m just not willing to vote for the guy that is one percent to the right of the democrats which would be necessary from the position you are advocating. If Bernie was the Democrat candidate and Biden the Republican would you vote for Biden to fight the left? I just don’t think it can be quantified in the way you are suggesting. At a certain point a person must refrain from voting or vote third party. That’s different for everyone of course. I do admit that Trump has made good on some things that I didn’t think he would. That’s the problem of course with a person who lies continually. It’s hard to know what they are actually going to do. These days I am more libertarian so I’m outside the discussion is some ways anyway. Tariffs for example are an utter disaster from my standpoint and a major reason I couldn’t vote for Trump. It will be interesting to see what he does with his second term (which I believe he will get).
is irrelevant to whether he is really saved or not…
I get it that some folks do not feel comfortable voting for Trump - both in the sense of not voting FOR Trump OR voting against Hillary or any other socialist the Democrats are likely to trot out.
To me though, I see those arguments with very little acknowledgement of possible, if not probable, consequences of that thinking. Sure, you may not have voted for Trump because of his morals, childish behavior, women chasing, etc. Great! But, what about his opponent? Imagine where we would be at with Hillary as president?
It’s like not wanting a certain dog guarding the sheep because you think that dog acts in a manner you don’t like. Meanwhile, there are actual wolves only too happy to guard the sheep. Yes, you voted your conscience which is your prerogative. You feel great about not letting THAT sheep dog around. Terrific! Yet, the actual wolf would be wreaking havoc far worse than the sheep dog.
Again I ask, who would you rather have, Trump (such as he is) or Hillary/whoever the democrat running against him? (I feel this binary question does hold water since no other third party candidate had a chance of winning.)
Not a great choice to be sure, but I’d rather have Trump. As Darrell Post commented, “Voting is not the same as endorsing.”
Regarding the arguments that a vote for someone other than Trump is not a vote for Hillary/democrats, in 2016 we kinda got lucky. Going into election day few people thought Trump would actually win. Generally speaking polling consistently showed Hillary was going to win. I think that argument only works if it isn’t a tight race. I would argue that in 2016, & possibly 2020, that a vote for someone other than Trump WAS a vote for Hillary/Democrats.
This is my point. I don’t want to be too blunt, so forgive the directness and don’t read too much into it, but this view says, “I am the only one that matters.” There seems no concern for the society around and the future for our children and grandchildren. Again, don’t take that too personally because it is not intended, but this statement is exactly what I am addressing. When we enter that voting booth, it is not just us. We have a civic duty to those around us to preserve something for the future, to take another run at it.
Take judges and justices for example: How can we say to our children and grandchildren, “I know we have judges who have moved us drastically towards the left and we had a chance to do something different but at least I satisfied myself”?
I don’t get any perverse sense of pride out of refusing to vote for either, and I’m not really excited about telling the Lord that both options were so bad I refused to vote for either. I’m much rather say that I believed that _______________ was the best candidate and I supported them wholeheartedly. The whole electoral system, to be honest, makes me sick most days because it seems guaranteed to provide the worst possible outcome in just about every case.
Sometimes the right answer is save enough for another day. It isn’t kill it and walk away.
Drinking poison or shooting yourself in the head might be a good analogy. If you drink poison, it is slower and it gives a chance for an antidote to be provided. Shooting yourself in the head rules out the chance for an antidote in the future. So it is wise to take the option that provides the best chance at a future in which change might be affected.
Maybe that’s the core of the disagreement then. You seem to hold out more hope than I do for the fate of this nation.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
“telling the Lord”
“one must vote before God”
“I will stand before God”
I am not sure what any of these statements has to do with voting. Voting is not endorsing. When the Apostle Paul elected to appeal to his Roman Citizenship in light of the circumstances he was in, he did not have to endorse Caesar to do so. He didn’t withhold usage of the citizenship Caesar provided him until a better or ideal Caesar was in office.
By God’s providence and sovereign plan, we faced a situation in 2016 where either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton would be president. It is not the path any of us would have chosen, but that’s what we had. I for one had my concerns that Trump might well go full-liberal if elected. But when he promised to appoint conservative judges prior to the election, there was enough distinction between the two bad options that there was something I could vote for—I could vote for a chance at getting good judges. I would have wanted to be able to vote for much more, but that’s about all there was on the ballot that had value to me.
So the vote had nothing to do with worries about standing before God to give account, or idealistic appeals to conscience, or anything like that. We are not omniscient to know how things are going to turn out. We had a choice of two options and of the two, one of them promised something that would be beneficial, if delivered. Thankfully Trump delivered on that promise.
But for some reason, many have taken the position that voting is the same as endorsing, and thereby trained their consciences that to vote for less than an ideal betrays their relationship with the Lord and makes them feel guilty. Voting is simply selecting a product. If I go to the grocery store to buy a box of cereal, I might buy Cheerios if I feel I need the oats to reduce cholesterol. If I have other perceived dietary needs, I might choose Raisin Bran. But I don’t have to endorse General Mills or Kelloggs to vote for the box I take home. In 2016, I walked into the voting booth, and chose the option of possible conservative judges against the other option of liberal/socialist judges. I didn’t have to endorse Mr. Trump to do so, and it has nothing to do with conscience and the account I will one day give to the Lord.
[Larry]This is my point. I don’t want to be too blunt, so forgive the directness and don’t read too much into it, but this view says, “I am the only one that matters.” There seems no concern for the society around and the future for our children and grandchildren. Again, don’t take that too personally because it is not intended, but this statement is exactly what I am addressing. When we enter that voting booth, it is not just us. We have a civic duty to those around us to preserve something for the future, to take another run at it.
My concern for my children and future grandchildren drove me to reject Trump. He was/is a populist, not a principled conservative. When I expressed my concerns over his lack of a genuinely conservative platform, I was told “At least he fights.” That’s not a long-term strategy for success. Even if he manages to win a second term and all his judicial appointments live up to conservative expectations, he’s not convincing young minds to embrace conservativism and pursue long-term goals. You may look down on it, but my vote was very much made with my civic duty in mind.
Voting is simply selecting a product. If I go to the grocery store to buy a box of cereal, I might buy Cheerios if I feel I need the oats to reduce cholesterol. If I have other perceived dietary needs, I might choose Raisin Bran. But I don’t have to endorse General Mills or Kelloggs to vote for the box I take home. In 2016, I walked into the voting booth, and chose the option of possible conservative judges against the other option of liberal/socialist judges.
I’d love to know what kind of political leader a box of Cheerios is. I suppose it could lead me to make more breakfast or eat bacon instead.
Seriously, while I understand that some say that a vote is not an endorsement, I think that is one of the silliest positions I’ve ever heard. You are making a moral decision to elect someone who leads the nation and vast amounts of power, including the power to make war and potentially use nuclear weapons. It is absolutely a moral judgement to deem that Trump is more worthy of leading than Clinton was.
That’s not a long-term strategy for success. Even if he manages to win a second term and all his judicial appointments live up to conservative expectations, he’s not convincing young minds to embrace conservativism and pursue long-term goals. You may look down on it, but my vote was very much made with my civic duty in mind.
Exactly. You’re fighting politics with politics. If / when Trump loses in 2020, what’s to stop the new Democratic President from adding two or four (or more) SCOTUS judges and packing the bench to the left of RBG? It’s something that is already being debated by their party.
All of these political appointments are nice, but they’ll be undone. It’s not a cause to throw our hands in the air and say all is lost, but I don’t think that allying with Trump is the right solution either. He’s done more damage to the evangelical / Christian ‘brand’ in America than ten thousand atheists have/could.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Larry] Some will be quick to point out that no state was decided by one vote. But that is to miss the point entirely. And yes there are states where the voting is so one-sided that a person can legitimately make a “protest” vote. I have done it. But there is a bigger picture going on.I am convinced that there are a number of well-meaning people who are, dare I say, selfish. Their own idealism actually hurts the country and community they live in by refusing to vote wisely. They have satisfied themselves while hurting others. I think civics and voting is about more than us as individuals. It is about our community, our so-called social contract with one another to pursue a better society. When one votes only for themselves, it is a dangerously selfish thing to do.
I don’t understand the reasoning on this at all.
So two people vote. One believes his choice is best for the country in the long run. So does the other. They made different choices on the ballot. So one is selfish for not choosing an “electable” candidate?
To reason this way you have to assume several things:
- Winning an election is the only way to do what’s best for the country in the long run
- The result of the election is the only factor to consider in weighing the ethics of the choice
- People have the power to force either-or choices us and make us morally responsible for the outcome
I reject all three of these premises.
The third one takes some explaining. I’ve already done it in another thread, but maybe it helps to repeat it here.
Suppose an evil madman kidnaps me, chains me to a chair and puts a box with a red button on it in front of me. He says “If you press the red button, you’ll blow up a maternity ward at county hospital, killing 12 newborns. But if you don’t press the red button, I’ll blow up this other hospital’s maternity ward and kill 100 newborns.”
Am I responsible for the outcome if I say, “Sorry. You’re the evil one here, and anything that happens is your doing not mine. I’m not playing your game”… and he blows up his bomb? (Or maybe both of them?)
I don’t believe that it’s Christian to analyze the morality of choices solely in terms of outcomes. Sometimes an act is just wrong regardless of what it accomplishes, and regardless of what the alternative would indirectly advance.
But even in the “outcomes only” calculation, it’s far from obvious that electing a man who is bad for the country in 9 ways is better than indirectly helping another candidate who is bad for the country in 9 different ways. So, it’s far from obvious that “winning” an election is the only way to do what’s best for the country. (There are many ways to demonstrate this, but one more: sometimes a political party needs the discipline of losing in order to get in touch (or back in touch) with what it ought to be doing.)
It remains to be seen whether there is any hope at all for the GOP or if there will be any such thing as a conservative party in America for years to come. Many on Trump’s right are opposing not only the left but the basic liberties and principles that made America great in the first place (ironic…. vs. MAGA). We no longer have conservatism in many of the institutions where it used to flourish. We now have Trumpism… which isn’t quite the fascism many on the left try to make it out to be, but it is frighteningly anti-freedom and anti-virtue in many, many ways.
Conclusion: There is nothing selfish at all about doing what one believes to be morally right. It’s the exact opposite. It’s choosing the option that one believes meets a moral standard that transcends all of us.
I accept that excessive idealism in voting is damaging. But even the excessive idealists are not selfish to do what they believe is right. In this case, though, there is no excessive idealism in refusing to support Trump. He is far, far more problematic than anyone the GOP has nominated in a very long time.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Great post. One question, though. When you say this:
I don’t believe that it’s Christian to analyze the morality of choices solely in terms of outcomes. Sometimes an act is just wrong regardless of what it accomplishes, and regardless of what the alternative would indirectly advance.
Aren’t we really talking about buying into good ol’ fashioned pragmatism?
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Regarding the thinking of rejecting Trump because he isn’t a principled conservative or does enough to promote conservative values.
OK.
You know who definitely isn’t a principled conservative or WILL most definitely destroy conservative values …
Biden, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, et al You know, the folks who will support late term abortion, will open our borders, would never, ever appoint a conservative judge, who support the Green New Deal, who support tax-payer funded abortions for transgender males, would not support convicting illegals who commit crimes, etc., etc.
And we’re concerned about Trump?????
We’re concerned that Trump isn’t conservative enough or that he’s conservative in name only when the alternative is the outright destruction of conservative values.
I hesitate to use the term “pragmatism,” because it has become kind of a bogeyman. It’s a weaponized word that tends to be used for trying to dismiss an idea/behavior rather than explaining what’s wrong with it. Plus, I’ve experienced plenty of frustration with what I’ll call anti-pragmatism, or maybe better termed “anti-practicality.”
I believe we’re all pragmatic/practical/outcome-based much of the time, and reality requires us to be. The problems come from…
- Not looking beyond short-term outcomes
- Not looking beyond superficial/apparent outcomes
- Not properly weighing outcomes for which matter most
- Forgetting to consider factors that aren’t outcome based, or if considering them, not properly weighing their importance relative to the outcomes
So, compared to some, I’m a pretty pragmatic guy—and not very idealistic.
In public policy, for example, I’m an incrementalist about abortion restrictions because I think it’s the more effective way to move toward a culture of life. And in presidents, I’ve never been a single-issue voter or even a “top ten conservative convictions” voter. I’ve often voted for candidates I thought were inadequate on conservative principles and/or effectiveness at getting good policy accomplished. I’ve never voted for a candidate who was brutish, disloyal, ignorant/confused on basic American principles like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, or of fundamentally bad character.
Even that is partly for pragmatic reasons: the outcomes of a commander in chief who is mean spirited, crude, and to borrow a phrase, “bellicose and pugilistic”—are far more pervasive and enduring than just what laws get passed or what executive orders are handed down. So my thinking on this is almost as outcome-based as anyone else’s: I’m just looking at different outcomes—less obvious and immediate ones. Less policy-focused ones. I’m looking at how we get policy done, not just what gets done.
But where I differ from pure pragmatists is in factoring in that an act can be morally wrong even if it has desirable outcomes—sometimes, even if it has more desirable outcomes than undesirable outcomes.
A good question to test for “excessive/lazy pragmatism” would be this: How despicable would a GOP nominee have to be before you’d see it as wrong to vote for him? If the only answer I have is one that is relative to the other electable candidate, my ethics needs reevaluating… that’s pragmatism of the worst sort.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[mmartin]Regarding the thinking of rejecting Trump because he isn’t a principled conservative or does enough to promote conservative values.
OK.
You know who definitely isn’t a principled conservative or WILL most definitely destroy conservative values …
Biden, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, et al You know, the folks who will support late term abortion, will open our borders, would never, ever appoint a conservative judge, who support the Green New Deal, who support tax-payer funded abortions for transgender males, etc., etc.
And we’re concerned about Trump???
We’re concerned that Trump isn’t conservative enough or that he’s conservative in name only when the alternative is the outright destruction of conservative values.
I find this characterization ridiculous. Of course we’re concerned about Trump. What do I care about all the God-haters on the other side? None of them will ever have a chance to earn my vote with that platform.
Yes, as Christians we have to be “concerned” about everything we do. That would have to include how we do our part of governing: who we identify with, who we vote for.
Biden, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, et al You know, the folks who will support late term abortion, will open our borders, would never, ever appoint a conservative judge, who support the Green New Deal, who support tax-payer funded abortions for transgender males, etc., etc.
And we’re concerned about Trump???
There are some assumptions here and it’s our duty to examine our assumptions and see they’re true. Among them:
- Are policy outcomes the only things that matter in deciding who we support?
- Is what gets done all that matters, or does how we get it done matter?
- Does damage to the nation’s ability to conduct productive public discourse count for anything?
- Do frequent attacks on basic liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press matter less than these other policy concerns?
- Does the ability to actually make a coherent case for policy and reach future voters with persuasive ideas matter for anything?
- Does contributing greatly to a culture of disrespect, lack of restraint, and lack of reflection count for anything?
I could go on. But the current array of notions coming from the Democratic array of candidates is really mostly just desperate efforts to get the party nomination. Right now, both parties are dominated by the most combative and extreme elements, so winning a nomination means pandering to fringe elements. Unfortuantely, on the right the fringe elements are now the establishment.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
“Seriously, while I understand that some say that a vote is not an endorsement, I think that is one of the silliest positions I’ve ever heard. You are making a moral decision to elect someone who leads the nation and vast amounts of power, including the power to make war and potentially use nuclear weapons. It is absolutely a moral judgement to deem that Trump is more worthy of leading than Clinton was.”
Is it silly because you have never considered it? I would invite you to consider re-training your conscience. It is not a moral decision to cast a ballot for a candidate. You have trained your conscience to think this way, so of course you would feel guilty if you voted for someone less than ideal. Both Clinton and Trump were a danger in respect to leading the nation with all its power and making war. One of them promised to deliver the product of conservative judges, and the other promised to fill court vacancies with young socialists. The high courts are not lost for the rest of my life because Clinton didn’t win.
“How despicable would a GOP nominee have to be before you’d see it as wrong to vote for him? If the only answer I have is one that is relative to the other electable candidate, my ethics needs reevaluating… that’s pragmatism of the worst sort.”
The question that matters is which candidate has something to offer. If both candidates are exactly the same and neither has anything worthwhile to offer, then I see no reason to vote for the GOP nominee. That wasn’t the case in 2016 as Trump promised to deliver conservative judges whose influence will be around long after Trump is out of office and even in his grave.
Again, I assert that voting is simply not the same as endorsing. If I need to buy a sheet of plywood, I can go to Home Depot in good conscience and buy it, even though this company has chosen to endorse things I would never stand for. Trump offered a product different from Clinton—a meaningful difference in an area that affects society for years to come. By voting, I simply said, yes, would rather have that outcome than the alternative. It does not mean I endorse Trump’s boorish behavior, his immorality, his temper, etc. Clinton was all these things too, though expressed in different ways. But the product she offered was 6-3 socialist supreme court that would likely last the next 20 years or so, along with all the lower courts stuffed with socialists as well.
In the New Testament, the apostles never had the chance to vote for Caesar, who was never up for election. But based on how Paul utilized his citizenship, I have ever confidence that had there been an election for Caesar and both candidates for Caesar were personally immoral, but one wished to tolerate Christians and the other wanted to persecute Christians, Paul would have had no problem voting for the candidate who offered the product of tolerance.
The voting booth is simply a place where a voter decides which of the options offer a product that the voter would prefer be their future as a society. I wished the GOP had someone else be the nominee who would have delivered on the judges as well as so many other areas of leadership that would have benefited society. But that wasn’t an option. I voted simply to choose one product over the other. That product was defective in many ways, but it was a choice of one or the other, and it simply had nothing to do with my personal morality, my personal ethics, or giving an account before the Lord, or any of those things. It was simply a vote—a vote that in the end counted for nothing because all 13 of Virginia’s electoral votes went to support Clinton.
Is it silly because you have never considered it?
We’ve been discussing Trump’s run through the GOP primaries, the general election, and since he won. Yes, I understand your position pretty well, I just disagree with it. I don’t think that electing Trump is worth the payoff of court justices. I’m not sure what else there is to consider.
I would invite you to consider re-training your conscience. It is not a moral decision to cast a ballot for a candidate.
I would invite you to respond to my rationale as described in an earlier post. I don’t think that my conscience needs to be “re-trained” on this matter, and have to wonder why you’re even phrasing it that way. It’s a little heavy-handed.
You have trained your conscience to think this way, so of course you would feel guilty if you voted for someone less than ideal. Both Clinton and Trump were a danger in respect to leading the nation with all its power and making war. One of them promised to deliver the product of conservative judges, and the other promised to fill court vacancies with young socialists. The high courts are not lost for the rest of my life because Clinton didn’t win.
I know this is hard to understand, so I’ll say it again - electing Trump is not worth the gain of SCOTUS and lower court justices. Full stop.
I’m not counting HRC because we can’t know what she would have done since she lost. Christians need to stop leaning on political power to defend our rights and freedoms. Those are given by God, and the church needs to come to grips with the reality that we are not going to be able to retain them in 21st Century America. Electing Trump to get good justices is like building a bigger wall around a sandcastle when the tide is coming in.
The collapse of this civilization that we love is already happening. Let’s re-frame and retrain to part of a hated minority (cf. John 3:19-21, John 15:18-25) rather than to unequally yoke ourselves to someone who is an embodiment of the things that we tell people to repent and turn from.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’m just not willing to vote for the guy that is one percent to the right of the democrats which would be necessary from the position you are advocating.
But is it only 1% (assuming we can measure it with such a metric)? Was Gorsuch 1% better than who Clinton would have nominated? Or other judges all the way down? And how many percents better would it need to be until you are willing?
And remove the specifics of 2016 and talk about the principle. How do we give our children a chance? By abandoning it and cashing it all in? Or by voting for someone who can stave off the ultimate for a while in hopes of fighting another day?
Everyone has to make their choice on where the line is drawn, but my point is that there is something bigger than self in this. In a few years, I will be gone and you will too. But what will we leave for those behind us?
If Bernie was the Democrat candidate and Biden the Republican would you vote for Biden to fight the left?
Possibly, depending on a bunch of factors.
That’s the problem of course with a person who lies continually.
There’s no doubt that Trump lies a lot. He’s a politician. That’s a regular occurrence. It’s not real difference with some other politician. The other option lied repeatedly including to Congress and attempted to obstruct justice, if the reports are accurate. But again, I think we have a civic duty to maintain something in hopes of a future chance.
pvawter wrote: That’s not a long-term strategy for success.
But a long-term strategy for success is give the courts to liberal and progressive judges with lifetime appointments? Let’s say you give up the election to a liberal/progressive but manage to convince everyone to become conservative. It won’t matter much because our country is being run from the courts now with lifetime appointments. There is not much “civic” left at that point.
I understand the concerns. I don’t understand capitulation. It’s one thing to lose. It’s quite another thing not to even fight. There comes a point where giving up kills it rather than giving an opportunity for a reboot. I think minimizing damage and surviving to fight another day is a better option.
electing Trump is not worth the gain of SCOTUS and lower court justices. Full stop.
This seems so fundamentally misguided it almost has to be a parody. It is hard to fathom that this is a serious argument. The courts are where the future of law is. Even in the two years, we have seen the courts have tremendous power. Legislatures around the country are passing laws knowing that SCOTUS will determine if they are legitimate laws. Remember the Alabama abortion law? That has the potential to change the abortion debate because it does the very thing Powell said was necessary to overturn Roe. When that gets to SCOTUS, would you rather have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Or two of Clinton’s nominees?
I think what the courts are doing is totally unconstitutional. But it is the current way and the way of the future most likely. To say that isn’t worth it is something I can’t fathom.
Christians need to stop leaning on political power to defend our rights and freedoms.
This is a fundamental error in understanding two kingdoms and civic duty. Our rights and freedoms are not God-given per se; else everyone around the globe would have them, and everyone in history. They are part of our constitutional system. And Christians are not required to voluntarily give them up.
The collapse of this civilization that we love is already happening.
But I think you can’t see how your approach is hastening this. And how can we say we love our civilization if we don’t do what we can do to protect it? Again, I don’t get it.
Jay, fair enough, we have radically different world-views and radically different opinions as to the importance of the courts as they relate to our society and the direction the country is headed. Of course you are free to vote for whatever future you want, just as I am and will continue to do so. But its still true that voting is not endorsing, and it is certainly not yoking ourselves.
I don’t understand the reasoning on this at all.
It seems so simple. I think perhaps the difference is that you elevate belief to the status of reality, that if someone believes something it is therefore okay. I know you don’t actually believe that, but that seems the essence of the argument you make here—that if one believes his choice is best, it is the right choice to make.
Am I responsible for the outcome if I say, “Sorry. You’re the evil one here, and anything that happens is your doing not mine. I’m not playing your game”… and he blows up his bomb? (Or maybe both of them?)
Yes, you are responsible for 88 deaths that would not have occurred had you made a different choice. That doesn’t make your culpable in the same way as the kidnapper, but still culpable because people died who didn’t have to and you passed on the chance to save some. But consider this: You see a child kidnapped on your street, and you walk in your house and do nothing. Are you culpable? Of course, to some degree you are because you had a duty to life and to human dignity to at least try, even if you failed. You aren’t the kidnapper but you had the chance to stop it and you didn’t. How are you not culpable in some way?
I don’t believe that it’s Christian to analyze the morality of choices solely in terms of outcomes.
I agree.
But even in the “outcomes only” calculation, it’s far from obvious that electing a man who is bad for the country in 9 ways is better than indirectly helping another candidate who is bad for the country in 9 different ways.
I think it’s pretty obvious if the 9 ways are substantially different, particularly if the good is substantially different. Look at it this way: You will get a bad person either way (and will until Jesus is on the ballot). And you have to weigh the bad against the good or the better even if not good. And that’s what I think you aren’t doing.
Your argument seems the type that would not take $1000 because it isn’t $10,000. I say take what you can get and work for more later, in most cases.
Conclusion: There is nothing selfish at all about doing what one believes to be morally right. It’s the exact opposite. It’s choosing the option that one believes meets a moral standard that transcends all of us.
I think this is wrong. It can be incredibly selfish, even immoral and wicked to do what one believes to be morally right. This is the argument used in support of abortion: “I think it is morally wrong to bring a child into this world that I believe I am unready to have. Therefore I will abort him or her.” Yoiu would gladly say such a belief is wrong, even if the person really, really, really believes it.
As I said above, this puts right and wrong in the area of belief rather than in the area of reality. Something is right or wrong regardless of what one believes it to be. Belief does not make something right or wrong.
In an ideal world, my preferred candidate would have been on the ballot. Or yours. Or anyone else’s here which surely would have been better in many ways than Trump (though probably not in all ways). But in the end, we had the choices we had. And I think we had and have a duty to make the best possible choice, even if it isn’t ideal.
Aaron, I see your point about the term “pragmatic” - thanks for explaining your thinking. I think that the argument can be made that it is, in fact, pragmatism but it’s probably too inflammatory to use here.
Jay, fair enough, we have radically different world-views and radically different opinions as to the importance of the courts as they relate to our society and the direction the country is headed. Of course you are free to vote for whatever future you want, just as I am and will continue to do so. But its still true that voting is not endorsing, and it is certainly not yoking ourselves.
It’s fine if you disagree with me - we all give accounts for our actions to God. But I’d still like you to respond to the points I made earlier rather than just saying that we have “radically different worldviews” or that I need to “re-train my conscience”. Deal with the substance of what I’m saying.
As for not being equally yoked - 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 isn’t simply talking about marriage. It’s talking about making any kind of alliance with unbelievers and their gods. There’s all sorts of warnings in the OT as well about the people of God leaning on political alliances to protect them instead of leaning on and trusting in God.
You say that we aren’t ‘yoked’ with Trump. I’d ask you to spend some time googling or binging Trump and Evangelicals and looking through the results. Whether we want to admit it or not, one of the core alliances in Trump’s political base has been and will always be Evangelical / Fundamentalist support; Pew Research put it at 69% in March of this year. We can disavow it all we want, but the unsaved world sees it that way, and that’s who we are supposed to be reaching out to. We should be different, blameless, holy, and unspotted from the world, not equated with an adulterer, liar, gossip, and impulsive person.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
“As for not being equally yoked - 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 isn’t simply talking about marriage. It’s talking about making any kind of alliance with unbelievers and their gods.”
I agree its more than marriage. I also would say I wouldn’t be comfortable being Trump’s VP. But a vote simply is NOT yoking. Its saying of the two candidates, I would rather have this one, because this one promises to deliver a product more in line with the sort of society I would like the country to be. Following your standard, you should not shop in most stores, because if you buy a 2x4 at Home Depot, you have yoked up with them and their behavior of supporting things that go against God. And a purchase Home Depot actually involves the exchange of money. To vote you don’t even have to put down a $20 bill. You just walk in and mark a ballot.
And its also incorrect to suggest most fundamentalists/evangelicals supported Trump. If you go back and look at the GOP primaries, it was abundantly clear that most GOP voters were in favor of someone else, as I was. I had Trump at 16th out of the 16 GOP candidates. I lobbied hard for the party to choose someone else. I know there are the Falwells out there, and I scratch my head in disbelief that they supported Trump during the primary. But the majority of evangelicals and fundamentalists were for someone else. When it came to the general election, the options were Trump or Clinton. I wasn’t going to vote for Trump at first because I simply did not trust him, and I didn’t think either candidate was fit for the office. But when polling showed VA could be close, and then Trump made the promise to appoint conservative judges, I decided there was enough value there to vote in favor of conservative judges.
“We should be different, blameless, holy, and unspotted from the world, not equated with an adulterer, liar, gossip, and impulsive person.”
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. Voting for Trump did not equate me with him any more than buying a 2x4 at Home Depot equates me with the ownership who gives a portion of the money I spend there to godless organizations.
Furthermore, a vote for Trump was more that a vote for one man and his promise of conservative judges. It was also a vice president who breaks ties in the senate, for all the many staff positions, from Secretary of State on down. These appointments do affect our society greatly as many decisions made by these departments are binding without even a vote from congress. The Secretary of Education for instance has tremendous power to affect what goes on in our country in terms of rules and regulations.
John Fea: “Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump” See also this lecture.
Bob Woodward: “Fear: Trump in the White House.” One of the most horrifying books I’ve read. I believe it, too.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Some of the angst here is stunning. Is it really so hard for some people to understand that some of us will not support Trump because we think his “winning” is doing incalculable damage in other ways and that in the long run, we would have been better off without those “wins”?
I am not asking anyone to agree. I am just wondering why it is so hard for some to even understand the rationale. It is not a hard or complicated rationale and it is most certainly a credible one.
Discussion