Trump Derangement Syndrome, Desperation Thinking, and Facing the Questions

The CT article and the follow-up have made me seriously consider subscribing to the magazine. Might very well do it.

From dictionary.com:

Vote: to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot:

Endorse: to approve, support, or sustain:

I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings. I did not support him in the 2016 GOP primary because I did not believe he was qualified for the office and I did not trust him. I certainly did not sustain him in any way via financial donations.

But given the two options, Clinton or Trump, I did express and signify my will or choice in the matter of which one of the two I would rather have be president.

I don’t like Mr. Trump, and I voted for him against Clinton. Both can be true. Looking ahead to 2020, given I live in a state with no party registration, and given Trump has no primary opposition, I might well ask for the Democrat primary ballot so as to have a say in who I will not be voting for in the general election. It does not mean I endorse or support that candidate, but rather I would be signifying my will as to which one I would prefer run in the general election.

It seems to me that 90% of all the debate raging about how to vote could easily be wiped away if people would realize that voting is not the same as endorsing.

Bingo! That difference makes all the difference.

[Darrell Post]

I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings. I did not support him in the 2016 GOP primary because I did not believe he was qualified for the office and I did not trust him. I certainly did not sustain him in any way via financial donations.

CT isn’t worth subscribing to anymore. I was a subscriber mainly to access back issues of CT and Books & Culture (no longer published, unfortunately). I canceled my subscription. Not any real value anymore.

I was going to buy a subscription to the Times of London for Christmas. I may still do that. But, at $3.25 per month/$39.00 per year, I will certainly now subscribe to CT.

I didn’t agree with Galli’s interpretation of the infamous phone call, but I appreciate his basic point. I also really liked CT’s follow-up piece. I also liked Russell Moore’s book Onward. In short, I seem to appreciate what a lot of so-called “moderates” have to say about the intersection of Christianity and culture.

CT won themselves a new subscriber with these articles.

For the record - I did not vote for Trump. Also for the record, while I am more than a 0% in likelihood of voting for him the next time, it is still highly unlikely.

[Darrell Post]

I personally do not approve of Trump’s behavior or his moral failings.

This line of reasoning fascinates me most, because so many who disapprove of Trump call on it as one of their main reasons.

What moral failings are you referring to?

Frankly, I don’t care much about his behavior, as everyone leads differently, and if one takes a look at how British parliament runs, Trump would likely fit in really well over there. We’re not used to it in America, because our President is supposed to act more dignified (in public). I find Trump’s transparency refreshing. I expect, with the exception of likely profanity, we see a very similar Trump in public as how he acts in private.

His policies have been good on the whole. His appointments even better. We’re not saved by politics, but we have to be wise about what policies we want to see in America in the future, and vote accordingly.

[WallyMorris]

CT isn’t worth subscribing to anymore. I was a subscriber mainly to access back issues of CT and Books & Culture (no longer published, unfortunately). I canceled my subscription. Not any real value anymore.

Yeah, I tend to agree. They are mostly pathetic in their content in recent years. Basically useless. I have all the issues from the beginning in my Logos library, however. There is useful material early on.

If you want a good edifying magazine, however, I can recommend one!

Is it possible to achieve short term success in ways that produce long term failure?

As I posted in another place, this is the question I think you are failing to wrestle with. You can achieve the short-term success while producing long-term failure. And that is what many of us think the greatest danger here is. You are willing to sacrifice the long-term on the altar of the short-term.

The idea that Trump is demeaning the office of the presidency ignores history. Trump is an outspoken clown who is profane, immoral, and often mean. But this has happened for generations. This is not new.

figure out what’s right and do that. Stop being desperate.

Yes. This is what those on the other side (whether Trump supporters or not) believe. The question is, What is right? You haven’t made the case yet.

Desperation says, “We gotta get Trump out of office no matter who replaces him.” Trust says God can work through a flawed person.

You see, Aaron, your arguments don’t promote your position. They work equally well against you, and perhaps better.

Trump will be gone in 5 years at the latest. But the judicial appointments he makes will last for decades and those are what determine the society we live in. Yes God is sovereign and the church has no right to expect governmental help or approval. But we are Christian citizens with a duty to work for the betterment of our society as Christians. To abdicate that duty for short-term gain seems hardly Christian to me. Why does it to you?

[Aaron Blumer]

It’s not about leadership style.

Not about acting dignified.

Not about the difference between voting and endorsing.

I really didn’t think I had to prove that he has serious character problems, but maybe I need to bite the bullet and write that one. It’s just very hard to write because the quantity of examples is so overwhelming. … and it feels silly because it seems so obvious.

Just read Proverbs, collect all the descriptions of how a fool behaves in contrast to how a wise person behaves. Proverbs doesn’t give Christians the luxury of calling this kind of behavior just another leadership style.

I submit to you that the way he acts on Twitter and in other public venues is part of the persona he wants to display because it energizes such a huge portion of the population – his voters. Your argument about the way he acts in comparison to what Proverbs displays is, frankly, irrelevant. What he does is far more important than how he acts.

Regarding his alleged character problems, I challenge you to come up with anything since he has been in office worthy of his removal. His greatest opponents, those most certainly not filled with the Spirit, have done their absolute best to find something, anything, that would give them grounds to remove him. The best they could come up with is obstruction of Congress and abuse of power. The former has already proven to be a baseless accusation and will go nowhere. The latter is nothing more than his leadership style, as it has also been proven repeatedly that other US presidents have done far worse than Trump and were never impeached, starting with Mr. Obama. If his Moriarties can’t come up with anything more substantive than that, then I’m confident you cannot, either. Complaining about his lack of control of his tongue and even his pride really just amounts to nothing more than “he’s mean. He shouldn’t be president.” It really seems rather childish.

Side-note: I can’t believe I’m defending Trump. It’s just the more I learn of the positive impact he is having, the more I am willing to overlook his childishness, his bullying, his ego, and every other visible ridiculosity that he embodies. Maybe he himself has no idea, but what I see is that God is using him to advance things that favor Christianity. This is the first time in my life that I see a president who is trying to advance conservative values winning. In politics, you cannot kill your opponents with kindness. Trump is over the top, for sure, but he is winning. It’s rather refreshing.

Aaron wrote: All the ethical issues involved in endorsing still exist when “signifying the choice of.”

Not at all. I am considering voting in the 2020 Democrat primary for a truly horrible candidate with whom I disagree with on virtually everything. The reason for my vote is to express or signify my will or choice in the matter of who will be the Democratic Party candidate in the 2020 general election for president.

Voting is simply not the same as endorsing. If these terms were the same, then there would be no reason for both terms to have developed into common usage. Approving, supporting, or sustaining all suggest positive affirmation. Voting lacks that basic component. Someone on death row might be given the opportunity to signify his will and choice in the manner of death, electric chair or lethal injection. The condemned votes for one of them, without supporting, approving of or sustaining that method of death. This illustration holds up, as many voters back in 2016 spoke of their options using such morbid analogies. But they still exercised their right to express their will or choice in the matter.

I totally agree with you Aaron that Trump doesn’t hold up well under the scrutiny of the book of Proverbs. But when neither candidate does, I can still signify my will or choice in the matter of which of the two Proverbs-failing candidates I would rather have in office and picking judges that will affect the rest of my life and the direction of the country for decades to come.

JNoel, I wasn’t referring to anything specific, just speaking in general terms. I am thankful that Trump has performed much better at being president than I had feared going in to this. He was last on my list of GOP primary candidates, but unless something drastic changes in the next 11 months, I expect to vote for him in 2020.

[Aaron Blumer]

Who said it was new? So now, if something is old, that makes it wise and good? Nothing is much older than pride (Gen. 3) envy, and murder (Gen. 4). Are we really not seeing the the problem in claiming the moral high ground and backing a low-life as our leader? That has never, ever worked as a long term strategy. How could it? And even if we could find it “working” somewhere in history, it’s never, ever been right.

So Trump is a low-life? Well that’s an interesting accusation. I’m really doing my best to approach this conversation open-minded, objectively, to understand the various angles and to consider each. But it isn’t working. Interesting, don’t you think?

Still waiting to hear why you think his morality or lack thereof is any worse than any other president (or human, for that matter).

I’ll say again - I didn’t vote for him last time, and while there is a slight increase in whether or not I’d vote for him next time, the answer will likely still be a “no.” But it is growing increasingly difficult, as a Christian and as an American, to hate him as President when I see how his leadership is benefiting us in so many ways.

Aaron,

It was a choice between two options on a ballot. You seem to keep pining for an option that wasn’t on the ballot. We all agree that we would have loved to have been able to vote for a leader who was full of Biblical morality, integrity and character. But none of those things were options on the ballot. And when we see voting for what it is, and leave endorsing for what it is, we can vote—choose which of the two flawed options we would rather see in office and picking judges. The only way I could see myself engaged in hypocrisy in terms of claiming moral high ground would be if I wholeheartedly endorsed Trump and worked to sustain him, while pretending his flaws did not exist, and at the same time preaching the importance of the traits for which he is so horribly flawed.

1) Trump is flawed.

2) Trump has made a lot of good decisions as POTUS.

3) Trump doesn’t get my endorsement.

4) Trump gets my vote.

These four things can all be true without me being guilty of hypocrisy or compromising truth on the altar of pragmatism. I don’t understand the ways of God, but by His sovereign providence and for purposes known to Him, the options on the 2016 ballot were Clinton and Trump. It appears that in 2020, the options will be Trump and Biden, or Trump and Sanders. I am not compelled to endorse, support, or sustain any of the options. But I can show up and express and signify my choice as to which of the two I would rather see in office.

Sure, you can choose not to participate. But if you wished to have any say in the outcome, you had to pick between Clinton and Trump. I chose to do so, looking at the bigger picture, knowing that it was much more than two names on the ballot. It was picking a VP who would preside over a narrowly divided senate. It was also picking an entire team of leaders who flesh out important departments all throughout the federal government—departments with the power to enact policy without congressional approval. For instance, the Trump-selected Secretary of Education has already made several important pro-family decisions that would not have happened had Clinton won the election. My vote was also for conservative judges who would not be on the SCOTUS or in all the circuit court positions had Clinton won. We were not voting for king. The election was for an entire body of leadership that will affect the country for decades to come.

I admit I struggled with my vote. I thought through the short-term/long-term arguments. When Trump promised conservative judges, that tipped the scales for me, even though I still didn’t fully trust him. I feared that once elected he would get his judge list from the “David Souter School of Judge Picking” taught by the faculty of George H. W. Bush. Then with George W. Bush, he put us conservatives through tremendous difficulty while wresting with the judge picks. How refreshing with Trump—he just said give me the list of conservative judges, and lets pick one. Simple. Easy.

Now 3 years later, it seems my vote was the right call. It still does not mean that I approve of Trump’s behavior, and I still would rather have a different leader—one who is conservative by conviction with the character and integrity to go with it. But I don’t always get what I want and sometimes have to settle for what is available.

Edit - to point out further that in the end, my vote for Trump had no affect on the results because I live in a state that awarded Clinton all of the electoral votes for my state. So if we think of it in terms of what happened that actually mattered for victory, my neighbors shouted me down, and I along with the people in my state gave full 100% vote to Clinton’s electoral vote tally.

I must confess that I haven’t obsessed much over Trump’s presidency and frankly don’t have the time or interest to follow the impeachment apart from snippets. Maybe it’s an age thing, having seen presidents and crises come and go, or lack of philosophical depth. Even more it’s a commitment to the gospel and to the confidence that God lifts up and puts down. I don’t know that I’ve ever voted based solely or largely on a candidate’s personal morality. But I know I won’t vote for someone whose public morality and agenda result in more death of the innocent and the normalization of perversion. These are battles worth fighting even knowing that galloping evil will only be ended by divine intervention and swift vengeance.

I also confess that Trump qua president has accomplished a great deal for the good of the nation with the opioid crisis, criminal justice reform (two areas of my work), judicial appointments, trade, etc. Call it pragmatism if you must. By any other word it’s reality. Trump also certainly has done great harm in other ways and may be a lowlife in some ways. But should we call him that? Trump is the duly elected president of the USA. We live in a nation where we can dissent and disagree. I’m not a lawyer but I fail to see why he should be removed from office based on what the House has uncovered or invented. As someone said, Trump may be in office for another or year or five. Life will go on. Maybe not in a way we want or have seen in the past. The partisan politics, the demonization of others, the contempt for law and the constitution is endemic and no party is completely exempt. I’m more interested in who someone lives for than who they vote for.

My perspective has surely been influenced by my experiences, living overseas for over a decade, five of those years in post-Communist Romania, ministry in many countries with political turmoil (including Russia, Ukraine. Moldova, Bulgaria, former Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Vietnam, Lebanon), two trips a year now to an African country that has had the same president for over 35 years, since its independence. Excuse me if I don’t vent and complain too much about the USA. There are few if any places like it.

Never Trumpers, Trump Haters, Trump Maniacs and those somewhere in between or farther out on the extremes all need to chill at times. For Christians, we shouldn’t be ignorant of politics nor do we need to be preoccupied with them. Let’s love one another, preach the gospel, do good to others, and pray that we might live as lights in a perverse world. Jesus reigns!

[Aaron Blumer]

As for any better or worse than any other president…. It’s not clear to me why that should matter. I’m not talking about any other president. I’m talking about this one. … and what sort of man Christians are supposed to support, often praise, actively defend against any and all criticism—characterizing any who do so as lefties or liberals or Clinton-fans, etc.

We’ve created an environment where telling the truth about a deeply problematic president is not permitted because holding him in any way accountable is equated with supporting the Democrats. This is folly. The choices are not back Trump 100% all the time or you’re helping the Democrats. Christians are supposed to be loyal to truth and right. Leaders and parties are secondary means… and they’re not effective means if we assume we have to side with or against them rather than with or against truth and right.

Now we’re getting somewhere. I could not agree with you more on these points. I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many Christians praise Trump so much. He is not a man worthy of our praise (is any President, for that matter?). His leadership methods (note: I didn’t say style) are not ones I want my children to grow up trying to emulate. Immorality has been brought up on a number of occasions, but that has always been with regards to his past; as far as we know (and I’m pretty sure we’d know more if there were more to know), no accusations of immorality have been made in recent years. I don’t give him a pass for his past problems, but at what point does one move on (i.e. forgive) what has happened in the past and accept what he is striving for today? I can still look at the positive impact he is having on our country vis-à-vis his politics and policies and be thankful. He is doing more good for our country than any president since Reagan, and before that it gets even more difficult because the 20th century has a very, very long list of pretty bad presidents.

[Aaron Blumer]

But is Trump any worse than Bush, or Reagan? If you can’t see that he is by now, nothing I could say could possibly make any difference to you.

My only point in that line of argument was that every single president had issues. No, I don’t think Reagan or Bush 41 were worse than Trump. Bush 41 was, in my opinion, the last truly “great” president, a true statesman. Yes, he also made mistakes, but he was the last one, in my opinion, truly worth of respect.

My take is that when I compare Trump to other politicians, the chief difference I can see is that he doesn’t cover his tracks, or have his tracks covered for him, in the same way other Presidents have done. You wanna talk philandering? Let’s talk JFK, whose “conquests” appear to have included at least two German spies (one Nazi, one East German whom he deported to avoid scandal) and a few lovers of Mafia dons. You want to talk about a hazard to the country from sleeping around? There you go. Let’s also talk Clinton, whose “bimbo eruptions team” (headed by none other than his wife) kept things quiet—along with a compliant media, of course.

Want to talk about being coarse? Let’s talk about JFK, Truman, LBJ, and Nixon. Again, the media covered more for them than they would for any Republican today, but let’s not pretend that Trump’s coarseness or philandering is anything new.

Same thing with business reverses. W had a bunch of them, JFK’s family relied heavily on government patronage for their businesses, LBJ married his money, etc.. Reagan went into politics when the movie roles stopped coming. Clinton? Let’s remember that Whitewater, the cattle futures scandal, and more were all attempts by the Clintons to get the money they thought they needed. Dozens of people went to jail over those.

Long and short of it is that the anti-Trump movement really seeks to impose a set of qualifications for the office that simply don’t make sense historically. I don’t really see the need to unilaterally disarm and in effect pull the lever for Democratic rogue because the Republican is a rogue, too.

There is also a reality that there is a moral reality to one’s positions on things like abortion and government control of industries. Put gently, we’re about sixty million deaths since Roe, and socialism has, worldwide, killed about twice that number. If we are to put that on a moral scale, support for abortion—including public funding for Planned Parenthood if you’re a Democrat these days—makes up for an awful lot of mistresses, if you ask me.

So much of what is being debated here simply involves the conscience and what each one believes to be the best course of action in an ethically complex situation.

Aaron is beside himself that others do not see what is so clear to him. And rightly so, he should be passionate about it, as this is how his conscience, informed by Scripture is leading him.

Others look at the same situation and see an opportunity, with Trump, to slow or even roll back some of the evil things going on in our culture, and they cannot comprehend why another believer would not want to be on board with stopping that evil. Their consciences, informed by Scripture is leading them toward a completely different direction than Aaron’s.

My interactions on this topic are from the perspective that we need to respect each other’s Biblically-informed conscience and the actions each feel compelled to take in response to the direction they are being led. I do not have all the information, and I am incapable of an all-wise decision. We do the best we can with what we know, and we need to respect that in others too.

Aaron, did you read Louis Hensler’s “Reflections of an Erstwhile Never Trumper”? I linked it in the previous Trump thread.

I don’t mind Christians who didn’t and won’t vote for Trump. I think they’re unwise, all things considered, but that’s the extent of it. But what is insufferable is the self-righteousness with which they lecture the rest of us on how un-Christian we’re being in voting for him, including Galli and you.

what will happen?! Abortion! Loss of religious liberty! Economic decline!

Your phrasing suggests to me that you find these things to be overvalued to an extent that is appropriate to mock.
So perhaps I’ll just ask:

- Do you think abortion is something worth opposing?

- Do you think religious liberty is Biblically good?

Economic decline is a bit more complicated. Phrasing it as “economic decline” seems to me to be a misunderstanding of conservative thinking regarding the economy.

Imagine a leader of a country who committed murder while in office in order to cover up adultery and had over 70,000 of his country’s population killed because of his mistakes (sin) and yet wrote parts of a book that has changed millions of lives. Imagine the leader of a country who started out doing good, but ended up corrupt with dozens of wives and yet wrote parts of a book that has been studied and revered for thousands of years.

Kings David and Solomon were as bad, if not worse, than any American politician in history. Yet, God used these deeply flawed men to write significant parts of the Bible.

So, because these men were as flawed as they were do we say, “Not my Bible?” (Yes, these men were directly chosen by God to write parts of the Bible, but the issue being discussed is character.)

One problem I have with those that point out Trump’s flaws and point out the flaws in rationale for evangelicals who voted for him (as a vote against Hillary) is that when they talk about Trump’s “character” they also fail to draw the line at which what level of “bad” character (in that we all are sinners and thus have “bad” character) is acceptable vs. what is not.

Aaron, you wrote above about approaching an election biblically. Upon what Biblical basis should evangelicals approach an election Biblically, including voting for Trump (as a vote against the Democrat candidate)? Are you suggesting that evangelicals who voted for Trump (as a vote against Hilary) were not acting Biblically?

Number of people Trump persuades to think conservatively who weren’t already: 0

How do you know? I have read people who say that they have been persuaded by Trump to support him. Perhaps that’s not “conservative” per se but I don’t know how you could make this declaration. Furthermore, isn’t this pragmatism? Judging the rightness of something by the outcome of it? In your view, this shouldn’t matter, should it?

Number of potentially persuadable people Trump’s character turns off to conservative ideas: probably millions.

Perhaps, but again, isn’t this pragmatism? If something is right, it doesn’t matter how many are turned off, right? Are we trying to win friends or make a better civil society? You can’t say we shouldn’t judge things by outcome and then turn around and use outcome as evidence for your view.

Length of time it will take for voters to elect a far left candidate: 1 to 5 years.

Length of time for voters to elect a far left majority in both houses: 1 to 5 years.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the left’s actions in the last few years has driven people away from them.

Length of time for far left to undo most of what Trump has accomplished: a few years.

False. Given the number of lifetime judicial appointments, this is likely decades not years.

So… electing (and continuing to support) Trump because Hillary just had to be defeated in this vote right now is the long term strategy, but holding out for a leader of decent character and authentic conservative values is short term thinking? Right.

No, those aren’t the options. The option is getting rid of Trump and exchanging him for a very liberal and progressive president or keeping Trump who is more conservative in terms of policy and appointments.

Is there any case that the first is better than the second?

As Darrell said, you seem to be wishing for a choice that isn’t there. I wish it was. I am not a Trump supporter.

But Hillary did not need to be defeated for the “right now.” She needed to be defeated because the policies and appointments were going to last for the long term.

On the other questions: how is it right to knowingly put such a man in office? Only a results argument can support that. Pure pragmatism… It’s time to call it what it is.

Is it pure pragmatism to have a president who is pro-life? Is it pure pragmatism to try to stem the societal trned on gender issues? Your choice would result in more abortion, more gender problems, more societal problems.

Why wouldn’t you take steps to minimize that? That’s what I still don’t understand.

This is where I take a deep breath, let it out slow and probably walk away. I can’t persuade the unpersuadable. I can only point out what’s there—sometimes what’s painfully obviously there—and be content that I did what I could.

But did you point out what’s actually there? It seems to me you have misrepresented or outright missed a lot of things that are there. And that is not for our good.

So.. comparisons of Trump to David or Cyrus or whoever are not all that meaningful to me. I saw a Christian Post editorial comparing Trump to Samson. A better comparison, but doesn’t have the application the writer hoped, I don’t think.

You shrug off comparisons with David without really interacting with the comparisons. The deeds of David’s life are clearly morally worse.

But probably the bigger thing you need to address:

1. Can it ever be wrong to take an action…

Desperation breeds an unhealthy focus on “But what will happen if I don’t?” It can lead us to re-characterize a choice between right and wrong as a choice between “the lesser of two evils.” In the sense of “two options with negative outcomes” the latter does happen. But a Christian is never so desperate that he has to do wrong in order to

Right…wrong… over and over. In an earlier thread, you stated that you were not thinking in terms of moral evil. Yet you insist on using these terms without explaining what you mean by them.
And in that last paragraph I quoted, your contention is that right/wrong overrides a real pragmatic benefit. What sort of right/wrong can do that except moral good/evil?

[Dan Miller]

So.. comparisons of Trump to David or Cyrus or whoever are not all that meaningful to me. I saw a Christian Post editorial comparing Trump to Samson. A better comparison, but doesn’t have the application the writer hoped, I don’t think.

You shrug off comparisons with David without really interacting with the comparisons. The deeds of David’s life are clearly morally worse.

I have tried to ask you this before but you never answered it. Are there previous presidents in your lifetime whom you thought did not have “lack of maturity, lack of wisdom and sound judgment, lack of self restraint, lack of respect, lack of trustworthiness, lack of principles in general, etc.”

I ask to clarify whether you simply “support” no politician, or whether it is just Trump.

Aaron, you wrote in a previous comment about approaching an election biblically. How should evangelicals approach an election Biblically, including voting for Trump (as a vote against the Democrat candidate)? Are you suggesting that evangelicals who voted for Trump (as a vote against Hilary) were not acting Biblically?

[Aaron Blumer]

When you have two genuinely unacceptable candidates, the choice most consistent with a biblical ethic is refrain from directly empowering either of them.

I would say that evaluating the options solely in terms of “how will it turn out?” is unbiblical. And I would say that rejecting both unacceptable persons is “more consistent with biblical ethics.”

Follow my logic, and tell me if I’m wrong.

• God is responsible for who the rulers are
• In America, the ruler is chosen by the people
• God uses people to accomplish his will of who the ruler will be

So,

• A large number of Americans who willingly identify as evangelical voted for Trump and continue to support/praise/endorse/defend (pick a term) him at various levels
• The conscience is one of God’s sanctification tools, especially in areas God did not specifically call out in the Bible (lying, cheating, adultery, murder, etc.)
• The Bible does not have any explicit commands telling Christians how to vote
• All Christians must vote how their consciences lead them

We then come back to something said earlier - voting for and/or supporting/praising/endorsing/defending Trump is a matter of conscience.

Therefore, according to Paul’s teachings to the church at Corinth, it is wrong to condemn anyone who voted for Trump. It is a matter of conscience, plain and simple.

That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it, as it can help us to understand each other and to possibly help adjust our thinking on the matter. But as okay as it is for one Christian to believe that not only is voting for Trump a vote to keep secular leftism at bay, but is actually even a good thing in itself, it is also okay for another Christian to vote for the 21st century version of Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, or whoever else various Christians believe is the absolute best person to be sitting in the Oval Office, regardless the reality that person will never actually do that.

Neither choice is wrong, unless the person making it is doing so against his own conscience.

That, indeed, is sin.

Here is Dr. Michael Svigel, a NT guy from Dallas Seminary:

Theology 101: I’m no ethicist, but it’s hard for me to think of a more relativistic ethic veiled as virtue than “the lesser of two evils.” Yet many who claim to embrace moral absolutes defend this stance as if it were self-evidently true.

— Dr. Michael J. Svigel (@Svigel) December 28, 2019

[TylerR]

Here is Dr. Michael Svigel, a NT guy from Dallas Seminary:

Theology 101: I’m no ethicist, but it’s hard for me to think of a more relativistic ethic veiled as virtue than “the lesser of two evils.” Yet many who claim to embrace moral absolutes defend this stance as if it were self-evidently true.

— Dr. Michael J. Svigel (@Svigel) December 28, 2019

Tautology. Yes voting for Trump is a relatively good choice. Because it is CLEARLY the lesser of two evils (in 2016, and again in 2020).

No one on here believes Trump is perfect. And no one believes he’s thoroughly evil.

Aaron thinks that Trump is [bad] * enough that it is somehow nobler or perhaps morally better to waste his vote rather than voting for him. (I think that position is the best example of “derangement” in this debate.)

I think that Trump is better as a presidential candidate than Hillary or the socialist 2020 field. (I wonder if Aaron agrees with this.)

I think that Trump is enough better as a presidential candidate that I would feel it would be wrong not to cast my vote for him. (“My vote” - I will not judge someone who took Aaron’s line and voted for [wasted vote].)

The parties generally vote as a block:

• Consider: Obamacare
• Recent tax cuts
• The Kavanaugh confirmation
• Abortion

Why I vote Republican. Yes Trump is a juvenile jerk …. got that!

I don’t think Trump is any more corrupt than Clinton

Theology 101: I’m no ethicist, but it’s hard for me to think of a more relativistic ethic veiled as virtue than “the lesser of two evils.” Yet many who claim to embrace moral absolutes defend this stance as if it were self-evidently true.

— Dr. Michael J. Svigel (@Svigel) December 28, 2019

Incoherent. If they defend it, it’s because it is not self-evidently true. If it were self-evidently true, it would need defending.

However, relativistic is not always wrong. The idea that it is is not founded in a biblical worldview or biblical anthropology and hamartiology.

If I refrain from voting for either of “the big two,” I’m not contributing directly to anything at all.

But you are directly contributing. Silence in the face of evil is no virtue.

I’m all for “taking steps to minimize” abortion and various other social problems. Is that really in doubt?

I would like to think it wouldn’t be in doubt, but you immediately follow this up with, “I can’t help him [gain power] , no matter [that he might decrease abortion] along the way.” And that is why, at least in terms of this argument, it is in doubt. You would like for abortion to decrease so long as it doesn’t require you to vote for Trump. You talk as if you would rather have abortion increase than Trump be in power. You would rather not have Trump in power even if more babies die because of it.

I know that’s strong, but tell me how else to interpret your words.

The pragmatism comes in when we:

• Begin the evaluation of whether to back or not back with the questions: what will be achieved? and will the alternative outcomes be? rather than with “Is he qualified from a Christian (and historic American as well) point of view?”
• Continue to defend all sorts of wrong on the grounds of some good he’s done

As to the first, that is always a consideration and I understand that there are cases in which I could not offer a vote in good conscience. And I may not vote for Trump. I don’t know. But to pretend to outcomes aren’t a part of civic responsibility is strange. There are lots of high character and even godly people who have no business running a race, much less a business or a company or a government. Many wicked unbelievers are well qualified to run organizations and governments. And given the option, we should choose someone qualified and able to run the government as opposed to someone who isn’t.

As to the second, I don’t think a lot are defending all sorts of wrong, though perhaps there are some. You will have to have that conversation with someone who defends all sorts of wrong.

I will gladly rebuke them with you.

It’s never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.

So is it right to not vote for Trump in order to get a chance to vote for someone else in the future?

That is a common argument, that if we can somehow defeat Trump, it will teach the GOP not to have candidates like him in the future. There is no guarantee that will happen. Furthermore, it might not matter by then.

Again, I think your arguments typically cut both ways. You have defined voting for Trump as wrong, and see everything in that light. But if voting for Trump isn’t wrong, your argument entirely falls apart.

Aaron,

You wrote the following (in part) in response to my question about voting “biblically:”

[Aaron Blumer]

mmartin wrote:

Aaron, you wrote in a previous comment about approaching an election biblically. How should evangelicals approach an election Biblically, including voting for Trump (as a vote against the Democrat candidate)? Are you suggesting that evangelicals who voted for Trump (as a vote against Hilary) were not acting Biblically?

The biblical way to think about this situation would be to recognize that I can’t vote for brain-damaged Reagan. I need to refrain from casting that vote. The indirect consequence may be that I help elect Mondale, but that isn’t my responsibility. I didn’t create the situation that gave me these these options. My job is to act wisely (to do right) and leave the outcomes to God.

When you have two genuinely unacceptable candidates, the choice most consistent with a biblical ethic is refrain from directly empowering either of them.

So would I say voting for Trump as a way of voting against Clinton was “unbiblical”? I wouldn’t put it that way. I would say that evaluating the options solely in terms of “how will it turn out?” is unbiblical. And I would say that rejecting both unacceptable persons is “more consistent with biblical ethics.”

Your response does mention voting biblically, but without reference to a story, example, or verse taken directly from the Bible. For example, what “biblical ethic” teaches me to refrain from directly empowering either of two, what may considered to be, bad candidates? What “biblical ethic” directs me to reject “unacceptable persons” and at what level does that biblical ethic tell me to transition any human candidate (we all are flawed sinners) from “acceptable” to “unacceptable?”

I will end with this:

Regarding direct vs. indirect, I don’t think you can bail out that easily. Failing to take reasonable steps to minimize evil is directly affecting it. Calling something indirect does not make it so nor does it make it less real. You appeal to something akin to “negligent,” as in “negligent homicide,” as in, “Didn’t mean to” or “Wasn’t my intent.” But as indirect as that is, it is still culpable. It was a foreseeable result that you could have taken steps to avoid. You can’t avoid responsibility by declarations or denials. You have judged it’s better to not vote for Trump. Fine. But you can’t turn around claim you are not responsible, to some degree, for the results. It’s a bit like a child who drops his glass of milk and then claims he didn’t cause the floor to be messed up. He only let go of the glass. “It was indirect,” he says. “I didn’t do that. It was gravity.” No one believes that, and with good reason. One of the ethical and legal standards is a reasonably foreseeable consequence. And that certainly seems to apply here.

Regarding explanation about abortion, I am not ignoring it. It makes no sense to me. What is the context and explanation that makes the increase and acceptability of abortion acceptable? I don’t find your comments convincing for what seem to be obvious reasons and I find it strange that is even controversial on a board like this. Are you arguing that we should not help a bad guy limit evil? Again, I can’t see the argument there. I can’t grasp what context makes that okay.

Let’s say you are in a store parking lot, and a couple of young thugs are beating up an old lady. There is a guy trying to help the old lady, but it’s one against two. You recognize the guy as a guy you know who cheated on his wife and is living with his new lover. He is also under investigation for extortion from the company he works for.

Do you help him defend and protect the old lady? Or do you walk on by because he’s a bad guy?

I bet you help out, and I bet you don’t think you are endorsing all his other sins because you helped him stop evil.

I don’t think there is any indirect outcome that can justify directly helping an unqualified man gain the presidency.

First, it’s not indirect outcomes we are talking about. They are direct and foreseeable. Second, it is hard to imagine that your mindset about qualifications for presidency takes precedent over life and the future of our lives.

Again, Aaron, I think this makes little to no sense in a real world. I realize you are convinced and that’s fine. Hopefully you realize how hard this is to grasp for some of us because of the enormity of what’s at stake. I don’t like Trump any more than you do. But there is a bigger picture than my personal dislike.

[Larry]

I will end with this:

Regarding direct vs. indirect, I don’t think you can bail out that easily. Failing to take reasonable steps to minimize evil is directly affecting it. Calling something indirect does not make it so nor does it make it less real. You appeal to something akin to “negligent,” as in “negligent homicide,” as in, “Didn’t mean to” or “Wasn’t my intent.” But as indirect as that is, it is still culpable. It was a foreseeable result that you could have taken steps to avoid. You can’t avoid responsibility by declarations or denials. You have judged it’s better to not vote for Trump. Fine. But you can’t turn around claim you are not responsible, to some degree, for the results. It’s a bit like a child who drops his glass of milk and then claims he didn’t cause the floor to be messed up. He only let go of the glass. “It was indirect,” he says. “I didn’t do that. It was gravity.” No one believes that, and with good reason. One of the ethical and legal standards is a reasonably foreseeable consequence. And that certainly seems to apply here.

Regarding explanation about abortion, I am not ignoring it. It makes no sense to me. What is the context and explanation that makes the increase and acceptability of abortion acceptable? I don’t find your comments convincing for what seem to be obvious reasons and I find it strange that is even controversial on a board like this. Are you arguing that we should not help a bad guy limit evil? Again, I can’t see the argument there. I can’t grasp what context makes that okay.

I understand that Trump has put judges in place who value life, but do we really believe, as those judges look at the laws, that they will put the lives of the mothers at an equal or lower position than the lives of the unborn? Look at the two choices in place - allowing the death of the unborn or being responsible for the death of a mother as well as the unborn child. Those are both bad choices, so then we have to go to which one is less evil. Is the death of the mother and child less evil than the death of just the child?

Is the law really the way that we as believers should be trying to decrease abortion? It’s one way, but it’s not a very effective way. We’ve been trying to decrease abortions through the law for years and years and years. Is it really just “bad judges’ that have prevented it from happening? I’ve always thought that if people come to know the Lord, then they personally will choose not to abort, and they’ll choose to convince family members not to abort, and they will help strangers with dealing with unwanted pregnancies, and they choose to adopt. Some of those issues, such as dealing with the financial pressures of pregnancy and adoption, are issues that can be dealt with by the federal government, especially if the president has the power of persuasion and the respect of those he is trying to persuade. If we put in place a president who is intemperate, disrespectful, and dishonest, then how can that president be persuasive in regards to abortion issues (or any issue of value to believers)? Such a president would cause a foreseeable reaction of disdain, a foreseeable reaction of immediate political reversal of any of his accomplishments during future political cycles. Sure, those are indirect results, but if we are culpable for indirect results, then aren’t we culpable for people’s reactions to Trump?

[Kevin Miller]

I’m curious about something since you wrote this paragraph about abortion right after a paragraph in which you said Christians are culpable for indirect results. Anytime abortion is restricted, and especially so if abortion was outlawed, women are going to find ways to abort a baby if they are feeling desperate. Some of these ways cause permanent bodily damage and even death to the mother, as well as killing the unborn child. The mother’s death would then be an indirect result of the restriction on abortion, so would the people who put the restriction in place be culpable? Would they be unable to avoid responsibility by declarations or denials?

I understand that Trump has put judges in place who value life, but do we really believe, as those judges look at the laws, that they will put the lives of the mothers at an equal or lower position than the lives of the unborn? Look at the two choices in place - allowing the death of the unborn or being responsible for the death of a mother as well as the unborn child. Those are both bad choices, so then we have to go to which one is less evil. Is the death of the mother and child less evil than the death of just the child?

Is the law really the way that we as believers should be trying to decrease abortion? It’s one way, but it’s not a very effective way. We’ve been trying to decrease abortions through the law for years and years and years. Is it really just “bad judges’ that have prevented it from happening? I’ve always thought that if people come to know the Lord, then they personally will choose not to abort, and they’ll choose to convince family members not to abort, and they will help strangers with dealing with unwanted pregnancies, and they choose to adopt. Some of those issues, such as dealing with the financial pressures of pregnancy and adoption, are issues that can be dealt with by the federal government, especially if the president has the power of persuasion and the respect of those he is trying to persuade. If we put in place a president who is intemperate, disrespectful, and dishonest, then how can that president be persuasive in regards to abortion issues (or any issue of value to believers)? Such a president would cause a foreseeable reaction of disdain, a foreseeable reaction of immediate political reversal of any of his accomplishments during future political cycles. Sure, those are indirect results, but if we are culpable for indirect results, then aren’t we culpable for people’s reactions to Trump?

This is the same argument made by those who want to legalize anything and everything. The government is supposed to protect its citizens, but it cannot protect everyone at all times and in every circumstance. Maternal protection is ancillary to legal abortion. Those who are pro-abortion want the choice to terminate a life for reasons almost exclusively other than protection of the mother. Before we got into this age of questioning whether or not abortion should be legal, the doctor and the rational-thinking adults were the ones who had to make the agonizing decision as to whether or not they need to end the pregnancy to save the mother … or save the child knowing the mother would die. But they did so with (or at least should have had) a respect for both the life of the child and the mother.

I completely agree that no one can legislate morality. But the government is supposed to protect its citizens. Legal abortion does not protect lives.

Aaron,

You wrote it is unbiblical to do wrong, to help others directly do wrong, and wrong to help the wrong sort of people become rulers.

So, it was wrong, as defined by the Bible, to vote for Trump (even as a vote against Hillary)? If you are making that kind of “biblical” case then you are also arguing that it was a sin for a Christian to vote for Trump in that manner.

Correct?

It was a sin to vote for Trump?? I violated God’s commands when I voted for Trump? I could’ve been the first perfect, sinless human (who was not Jesus) in the history of earth, but since I voted for Trump, I now would be condemned to hell - unless, of course, I trusted in Christ as my saviour.

Is that what you are saying?