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.)
- 60 views
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.
The Woodward book was on sale yesterday at my local library for $1; I almost picked it up but passed. Do you think it’s worth picking up, Tyler?
"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
Its hard for some of us to understand how others are so quick to dismiss the incalculable damage that would have been done by a 6-3 socialist SCOTUS for the next 20 years. We are never going to agree on this. But the courts have incredible power, and the judges put in place by Trump will have a lingering positive effect long after Trump and his temper are gone. As I said before, I ranked him 16th out of the 16 GOP primary contenders. But am very thankful we have a 5-4 conservative majority on the SCOTUS, and that the lower courts have been stuffed with conservative appointments.
The GOP primary numbers do not lie. They have not changed no matter who writes what book. Most GOP voters, evangelical or otherwise, preferred one of the many other options throughout the GOP primary.
Yes. But, I’d just check it out from the library - you’ll never read it again. It’ll end up like Woodward’s Bush trilogy, clogging the shelves at a Goodwill near you in a few years.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Larry]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.
I mentioned above that Trump did some things I wasn’t expecting. The conservative judges was one thing (although I have some doubts about Kavanaugh). The percentage thing was a point I was making. Obviously it’s not quantifiable in that way. If they are virtually indistinguishable (from my perspective) I would not pull the lever for either option. My duty is to honor God with my whole life, which of course includes voting. I don’t take the “civic duty” argument as far as some do (not necessarily saying you). It would not be a sin to abstain totally from voting. Your selfish argument doesn’t hold water imo. I had my children in mind when I voted for someone besides Trump. I’m more and more convinced I made the right decision. YMMV.
[Larry]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.
By accepting the choice of Trump/Clinton, you virtually guaranteed that your preferred candidate will not be on the ballot in the future either. Your children and grandchildren will likely see far more Trump-like candidates in the future because “He fights!” and “You may get tired of winning!” So voting for Trump was not necessarily playing the long game, judicial appointments notwithstanding.
“By accepting the choice of Trump/Clinton, you virtually guaranteed that your preferred candidate will not be on the ballot in the future either. Your children and grandchildren will likely see far more Trump-like candidates in the future because “He fights!” and “You may get tired of winning!” So voting for Trump was not necessarily playing the long game, judicial appointments notwithstanding.”
It wasn’t a matter of “accepting” the Trump or Clinton ballot…that was the reality whether you accept it or not. Those were the options if you wanted to have a say in the outcome. I totally do not buy the argument that Trump will lead to more Trump-like candidates in the future. Andrew Jackson was much like Trump, and so was Theodore Roosevelt who once boasted about his frustration with a Japanese diplomatic delegation, how he wanted to jump up and knock their heads together to get them to understand.
GregH talks about the incalculable damage Trump is doing. I think that’s a bit over the top, but accepting the premise that he is, then with the choices of Clinton or Trump, incalculable damage was a foregone conclusion. So if both options on the ballot will do incalculable damage, why not at least get conservative judges out of it—judges that will long outlast Trump’s presidency?
Again, I am far from a Trump cheerleader. I wish we had had one of the other 16 options who ran in the GOP primary. The thrust of what I have been saying is that there is simply nothing wrong with voting to get what you can. Voting is not endorsing, and that many have trained themselves to think so, and so they cannot in good conscience vote for less than an ideal candidate. Looking forward at the rapid decline in our culture, I am wondering if many of you should just turn in your voter ID card right now and never bother to vote again—given that we will likely never again see a candidate running who is close to the Christian ideal.
I get it that it was a tough call for many to vote or not vote for Trump, but for those who chose not to, and continue to be resolute in that decision, I am glad that you too will be able to benefit from the fruits of the conservative judges for years to come—whether or not you wanted them.
I can’t quite keep up with all the back and forth, but a couple of arguments I can revisit:
- The “it’s selfish” argument
- The “vote is not an endorsement” thesis
[Aaron’s] 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.
[Rebuttal] 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.
A few things about that:
- An act can be unselfish and still be wrong for completely different reasons
- An act motivated by desire to conform to a moral standard is not usually a selfishly motivated act. Some believe “morally right” = “what only I can judge for myself,” but most do not. In any case…
- Trying to discern and do what’s morally right in the eyes of God cannot be construed as a selfishly motivated act. In this debate, those who see backing a candidate who lacks the basics of good character as morally wrong are people who believe the standard of moral rightness and wrongness comes from God, not themselves.
- If we’re talking about something other than motivation, it’s unlikely that “selfish” has much meaning. The word is usually a motivational word.
- This debate isn’t helped at all by claims that those who see it differently are acting with selfish motivations.
- Even if true, it’s a classic case of the ad hominem fallacy. (“Ad hominem” is not synonymous with “personal attack”—I’m not offended or anything like that.) The fallacy reasons that a claim must be false because the person making it has some negative quality. Truth doesn’t work that way.
On the vote is not an endorsement thesis
- I don’t think the vote has to be an endorsement to be wrong.
- We may choose not to call it an “endorsement,” but it is certainly “an act aimed at putting an individual in power.”
One might object that, “No, it’s an act aimed at keeping another person from gaining power.” I certainly respect that, and that’s often how I vote. If who I’m acting to keep out of power were the only factor in evaluating the ethics of voting, that would be the end of it. (But I have to add that there is really no separating the two: a vote aimed at preventing candidate A from gaining power is also a vote aimed at helping candidate B gain power.)
But my thesis is that:
- The outcome of who is prevented from gaining power is not the only ethical factor
- Election outcomes (as in who wins and loses) are not the only factors
- Long term consequences and non-legislative/executive/judicial consequences are important but aren’t the only factors either
- Some acts can be wrong independently of outcomes
- I believe helping a man such as Donald Trump gain power is wrong independently of outcomes (though I also believe there are many widely-overlooked negative outcomes as well)
If someone wants to characterize that as “selfish,” they can do that, but I really don’t think it’s possible to make a very persuasive case for that claim, or that, even if true, it renders the argument false. (People can be selfish and correct and also unselfish and incorrect.)
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.
[Darrell Post]“By accepting the choice of Trump/Clinton, you virtually guaranteed that your preferred candidate will not be on the ballot in the future either. Your children and grandchildren will likely see far more Trump-like candidates in the future because “He fights!” and “You may get tired of winning!” So voting for Trump was not necessarily playing the long game, judicial appointments notwithstanding.”
It wasn’t a matter of “accepting” the Trump or Clinton ballot…that was the reality whether you accept it or not. Those were the options if you wanted to have a say in the outcome. I totally do not buy the argument that Trump will lead to more Trump-like candidates in the future. Andrew Jackson was much like Trump, and so was Theodore Roosevelt who once boasted about his frustration with a Japanese diplomatic delegation, how he wanted to jump up and knock their heads together to get them to understand.
GregH talks about the incalculable damage Trump is doing. I think that’s a bit over the top, but accepting the premise that he is, then with the choices of Clinton or Trump, incalculable damage was a foregone conclusion. So if both options on the ballot will do incalculable damage, why not at least get conservative judges out of it—judges that will long outlast Trump’s presidency?
Again, I am far from a Trump cheerleader. I wish we had had one of the other 16 options who ran in the GOP primary. The thrust of what I have been saying is that there is simply nothing wrong with voting to get what you can. Voting is not endorsing, and that many have trained themselves to think so, and so they cannot in good conscience vote for less than an ideal candidate. Looking forward at the rapid decline in our culture, I am wondering if many of you should just turn in your voter ID card right now and never bother to vote again—given that we will likely never again see a candidate running who is close to the Christian ideal.
I get it that it was a tough call for many to vote or not vote for Trump, but for those who chose not to, and continue to be resolute in that decision, I am glad that you too will be able to benefit from the fruits of the conservative judges for years to come—whether or not you wanted them.
Speaking only for myself, I am not looking for the “Christian Ideal” I’m looking for a politician with acceptable (to me) political positions. The person that I voted made less Christian pretense than Trump. It would of course be preferable to have an honest man but as Larry pointed out those are rare in politics. Trump comes across as an ignorant megalomaniac which I do think hurts the country. That would be my moral concern as it directly affects the credibility of the nation.
[Rebuttal] 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.” You would gladly say such a belief is wrong, even if the person really, really, really believes it.
I would argue that these are different examples. One (abortion) is tied to the moral choices of a mother and whatever ethical code they individually hold to…usually selfism or something like that. There is no objective moral standard in play other than what the individual wants.
For those of us who are Never Trump, the moral standard that we are basing our decisions on is (roughly) “neither of these options are acceptable to God, therefore I will vote third party or not at all because I don’t want to be associated with either.”
"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
Featured Resource
Discussion