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, again for all of Trump’s flaws, Hillary & the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates are worse. Far worse. Why don’t you and others on this thread want to acknowledge that reality? Why?
I really thought I already did that and explained why it wasn’t relevant. So, again: yes the electable alternatives on the ballot would have been worse in some ways. Trump is damaging in different ways. It was not at all clear to me—and still isn’t—that on balance, he is better for the country.
As I’ve already explained, this is true for many reasons, maybe the biggest being that when a party puts a man in power who is in so many ways inconsistent with what the party has claimed to be about for many decades, they accurately appear to be hypocritical. They greatly damage their ethos and greatly reduce the likelihood of winning over majorities — actually persuading people, winning the war of ideas. So it’s very possible—again I’m pretty sure I’ve already pointed this out—to win an tactical victory in an election and lose the war of ideas. (Which undoes all the policy wins, in the long run.)
Election mathematics — I think I get the point on that now. Yes in the counting of votes there is math involved, and what you do in one column impacts how things add up in other columns. It’s just not the topic I’ve been on in the article or the discussion: which is the ethics of it all. And the big difference here is the difference between what one does directly vs. what happens afterwards indirectly. It’s a very different thing to say “Yes, I want this candidate in power” (a vote) vs. saying “Here’s what I hope will happen when my vote is combined with everyone else’s” etc. The latter is a factor, but it’s less important than the direct act of helping put a man in power.
Social contract - It’s way, way more than merely tolerating. The fundamental idea is that rulers rule with the consent of the governed. It doesn’t always happen in the form of a representative democracy with elections, but it’s — at least in the view of SC — it’s always a matter of individual consent. In a democracy, this is the vote. And the vote is taken very seriously as your way of communicating “This is the individual I want to represent me and exercise power on my behalf.”
In Trump’s case, I’ve mainly focused on the ethics of authorizing him, but it’s almost moot. In my own case, it’s literally impossible for such a man to represent me. There are a few places where his agenda overlaps with what I believe to be good policy, but the why’s and wherefore’s of it all … not only is it not there, it is contradicted thoroughly by what is there.
On some of the other comments: I do not insist that presidents to have Christian theology or Christian character. I cannot support them if they are not decent human beings with a basic level of maturity, or if they claim to be conservative but deny it by their very character and much of their communication.
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.
It is interesting to me that Trump’s recent tweets and words have not come up here. I wonder why?
Anyway, it is a great object lesson for why Trump does not rise to the level of human decency to be leading anyone. I would not even hire him to work in my warehouse.
And I am certainly not going to vote for him to be the President of the United States. Doesn’t matter what his political views are.
which one? the one where he told the anti-semitic congresswoman to go back to the country she came from, fix the problems there, and then come back?
[Darrell Post]which one? the one where he told the anti-semitic congresswoman to go back to the country she came from, fix the problems there, and then come back?
Of course I am referring to that.
Trump should have stayed out of the civil war that was brewing between Pelosi and those four socialist congresswomen. But I don’t recall much concern in the media when the liberal governor of New York announced that conservatives were no longer welcome in NY state.
[Darrell Post]Trump should have stayed out of the civil war that was brewing between Pelosi and those four socialist congresswomen. But I don’t recall much concern in the media when the liberal governor of New York announced that conservatives were no longer welcome in NY state.
No, Trump actually should have kept his mouth shut and not said those things because that is what a decent human being would do.
As is typical for people like you that defend Trump, your defense consists mostly of logically invalid attempts to try to compare him to someone on the other side of the aisle. It is so tiresome. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Trump’s comments were wrong and frankly pathetic.
I wonder if you can’t condemn what Trump said because you agree with him. That is the uneasy feeling I am getting across the board on a lot of this stuff. And if true, we have really no common ground to discuss this.
Greg, you seem to act like civil government is the church. Its not. It never has been. Some of our founding fathers fought duels when the war of words escalated. In 1856 Preston Brooks beat senator Charles Sumner with his cane—in the senate chamber, nearly killing him. I don’t condone any of this. But it is a fact that representative government is a place of debate, and often heated debate in what rightly can be called a war of words over the future direction of the country. But you were pretty quick to accuse me of defending Trump. I said he should have stayed out of it. He often has jumped in and opened his mouth when wisdom would have guided him to stay silent. The reason I compared the situation to Governor Cuomo is to expose how easy it is for some to overlook the larger context of the war of words that is our current political discourse, and only focus on one side of it. We can agree that much of it is not Christian. I don’t expect any of these leaders to behave like my pastor. You believe Trump’s words were wrong. Do you also agree Gov. Cuomo’s words were wrong?
You asked if I agree with Trump. It is true I am a political conservative, and Ilhan Omar is a socialist who has argued for a living wage, ‘free’ government healthcare, and forgiving student loan debt. She also favors our country having open borders, and has made several anti-Semitic remarks. So politically, I have very little, to nothing in common with Omar. Her vision for the country is certainly not what I would envision. I would not have framed the comment in the way that Trump did (she should leave and come back), but the essence of his criticism of her is that she came to us as an immigrant from a very broken country (Somalia), and is very critical of our country and our ally in the middle-east, Israel, and so perhaps if she had fixed the problems in her country of origin first, then she could bring something to the table here. Politically speaking, it is considered fair game to expose the inexperience of political opponents. I wouldn’t have exposed her inexperience the same way Trump did, but I do affirm that Omar and socialists like her do not promote a future for America that I agree with, and I believe we are better off if socialists are not in power. If that means I have no common ground with you to discuss politics, then so be it.
Thanks for the response. It is a good reminder of how futile this all is.
For you, Trump should have kept his mouth shut mostly because it was bad politics but you agree with the sentiment. You excuse the coarseness of his words by pointing to other people that you figure are worse. And for sure, duels were very stupid. I will take your word on it that Cuomo said something stupid too.
For me, Trump should have kept his mouth shut because it is about human decency. His words contribute to a growing nationalism and racism problem in the country. (Have you read the comments posted by Fox News readers these days?) His words hurt rather than help. They are un-American. Thankfully, in general, our politicians are decent to the point where they do not tell people to leave the US because of their views.
I am going to bow out now. It really is a waste of time when there is no common ground (and no, this is not just about common ground in politics as you suggested).
Trump went after four sitting Representatives, and three of them were born in the United States. One is not.
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York (New York City)
- Rashida Tlaib of Michigan (Detroit, MI)
- Ilhan Omar of Minnesota (Mogadishu, Somalia)
- Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts (Cincinnati, OH)
I don’t agree with much of those women on much of anything (I’m not sure what we would agree on, actually, except basics like “the sky is blue” and “breathing is a good thing”), but I hate the way that President Trump treats them. They are his political opponents, but he can still treat them respectfully.
I’d feel a lot better about President Trump if he’d simply quit Twitter.
For me, Trump should have kept his mouth shut because it is about human decency. His words contribute to a growing nationalism and racism problem in the country. (Have you read the comments posted by Fox News readers these days?) His words hurt rather than help. They are un-American. Thankfully, in general, our politicians are decent to the point where they do not tell people to leave the US because of their views.
I think that Hosea 4:6-9 is instructive for us here. Trump isn’t our priest, but he is a symbol for a lot of what is wrong with the nation, and he’s demonstrating instead of suppressing our worst attributes as a 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
Greg, you introduced the word racism. You said, “His words contribute to a growing nationalism and racism problem in the country.” Nothing Trump said regarding Omar was racist. Omar is the one who has said anti-Semitic things.
“I’d feel a lot better about President Trump if he’d simply quit Twitter.”
Jay has said something of which everyone here can wholeheartedly agree.
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”?
Yes, because your statement seems to misrepresent the issue and fails to consider the alternative. A great many do not “support Trump” in any meaningful sense. Remember, the majority of evangelicals voted against Trump. There are some who fully support him and make it very well known and it is the tactic of some to tar all with that, but that is simply not true.
Second, the alternative was “incalculable damage” as well, so either way (and remember, there were only two ways), we were going to have incalculable damage. The question was whether or not we would have some wins. A person who doesn’t vote doesn’t absolve themselves of the consequences of the damage. It simply means they didn’t have a voice in what that damage would look like. I am actually not as troubled by the lack of civility though I think it is horrible.
The idea that Trump is worse than Hillary in the long run is the most absurd of conclusions to me. I can’t imagine any possible argument for that, and I have yet to see one.
It is not a hard or complicated rationale and it is most certainly a credible one.
Because I don’t find it either rational or credible for the most part. I know people truly believe it, but again, belief does not mark reality.
It was not at all clear to me—and still isn’t—that on balance, he is better for the country.
I can’t fathom the argument for this. If we were to assume that Clinton and Trump were equal across the board in all ways except for judicial appointments, it is beyond clear that Trump is better than Clinton. So I guess the question is, How is that not clear to you? What would it take to make it clear?
[Larry]The idea that Trump is worse than Hillary in the long run is the most absurd of conclusions to me. I can’t imagine any possible argument for that, and I have yet to see one.
It is not a hard or complicated rationale and it is most certainly a credible one.
Because I don’t find it either rational or credible for the most part. I know people truly believe it, but again, belief does not mark reality.
Your last statement goes both ways. But I will say that I at least understand your perspective and will not call it absurd.
It is not hard to see how Trump leads to damage far beyond Hillary. Nationalism is on the rise and Trump is its biggest cheerleader. Nationalism (and religious/political intolerance) may seem quite palatable for some here until you get on the wrong side of it. Or to put it another way, now that Trump has normalized a previously unheard of intolerance based on religious/political views in the Presidency, what is the future for Christians when a left wing Trump gets into power?
And before someone says it, yes I am speaking hypothetically and yes, the far left other side (including the 4 Trump targeted) is dangerous too. But it is not hard to see where this is potentially going and it is scary. Again, go read the people that post comments on Fox News (and Fox News remarkably does not even have the decency to moderate). Look at the polls about nationalism and other intolerance. I live in the south and I just have to listen to my neighbors to hear things I never would have thought I would hear.
I find AOC and her gang to be just pathetic. I can’t stomach them any more than I stomach Trump. But the conservative right should not be contributing to the problem rather than just consoling themselves that at least they are not as bad as AOC.
[Jay]I don’t agree with much of those women on much of anything (I’m not sure what we would agree on, actually, except basics like “the sky is blue” and “breathing is a good thing”), but I hate the way that President Trump treats them. They are his political opponents, but he can still treat them respectfully.
I’d agree to the extent that Trump should treat his opponents respectfully. Full stop. However, it’s interesting that everyone focuses on only Trump being respectful, but not requiring it from any of the 4 women he answered. They have been about as bad as Trump, and worse in some ways. Does that excuse Trump? Not at all. I wish he’d rise above it. But to treat his bad behavior when addressing them as somehow much worse than theirs is completely idiotic, and demonstrates at least as much political bias as those who defend Trump’s remarks.
Calling his comments racist (not saying you did this) is even more idiotic. I don’t know his internal motivations any more than anyone else does. But if you judge his actions and what he writes, he’s objecting to what they are saying and their positions, not their skin color. That was even true of his remarks about the events in Charlottesville, if you read *all* of what he said, and not just the parts pulled out of context by the media. It was just as obvious that racisim was far from what Pelosi said, but of course, it’s one of those 4 women you named that played the race card, not Pelosi or Trump. Trump is definitely contributing to lowering of standards of behavior, interaction and political discourse. But he’s not alone, and he’s not the one directly inflaming racial differences or attempting to turn the concept of nationalism into something sinister.
So yeah, I’m appalled by a lot of what Trump writes and says. But it’s fairly apparent to me that he’s just willing to get down and in the dirt with those already playing dirty. Frankly, I condem both sides on this.
Dave Barnhart
Discussion