Can Christians get political without hurting the Gospel message?

Sorry, but I still don’t get it. What do Christians supporting the political positions of President Trump have to do with Christians approving of his flaws? I, for one, cringe at many of Trump’s insulting Tweets and other manifestations of arrogance and crudeness. But politics is a chess game. We don’t support someone because we like their style, but because we like their principles and positions.

I’m getting more than a little weary of people telling Christians why they should not support Trump. Who would they approve our supporting? Clinton, in 2016? Any of the present list of Democratic contenders in 2020? Give me a break! Once Trump won the Republican Primary, the options for meaningful political support for religious freedom, restraint of big government, conservative judge appointments, etc., were narrowed down to one viable candidate, like it or not.

G.N., I agree with you as far as it goes, but read the article closer. What the author is decrying is the tendency of any group, ours included, to start becoming “inbred” through isolation to where we do not see our own faults in thought, presentation, and the like. The Babylon Bee spoofs this tendency admirably in posts like this.

This!

I’ve yet to hear a good answer to the question of who else should’ve we voted for?

[G. N. Barkman]

I’m getting more than a little weary of people telling Christians why they should not support Trump. Who would they approve our supporting? Clinton, in 2016? Any of the present list of Democratic contenders in 2020? Give me a break! Once Trump won the Republican Primary, the options for meaningful political support for religious freedom, restraint of big government, conservative judge appointments, etc., were narrowed down to one viable candidate, like it or not.

[Joeb]

A lot of the same people who were involved with Bill Gothard ie Sarah Palin Mike Pence Mike Huckabee Mr Green owner of Hobby Lobby and a number of Freedom Cacus Members including Founders Daniel Webster and Jim Jordon. Daniel Webster has been a Gothardite for 30 years. If that doesn’t shiver your timbers I don’t know what will. These are some of the same people who have brought a disgrace to our Lord’s name and painted a bad picture for Fundy/Evangelical Christians. Did anyone order Jim Bakers end of times food stores yet.

I am curious. Do you really know that these people were involved with Gothard? Daniel Webster—yes I know that to be true because I performed in his son’s wedding. Green, yes. Jim Jordan is probably the politician I most despise in DC today but I see no connection between him and Gothard. If Huckabee put his daughter in Gothard’s character-baed education, she apparently missed the section about honesty since her job now is to lie dozens of times a day. And the others?

For sure, these kinds of Christians are pragmatic hypocrites of the first order and do incalculable damage to any reputation Christianity is clinging to. But are you sure they are associated with Gothard?

G N Barkman, mmartin, Joeb

Thanks for the fresh air of common sense and common grace in your analyses of the continuing saga of our duly-elected president. Will the “Nevers” and their well-wishers ever stop nitpicking Mr. Trump to death? Since the sometimes decades-old evidences of his being an incorrigible life-long moral leper have subsided due to a lack of fresh, recent juicy tidbits, the certified moralism “character counts” has used up all its mileage. Now we are down to the second-tier complaints of his incompetence—his unflattering remarks at the stupidity of his enemies. Are the egos of the “Nevers” that easily bruised in judging his abilities and efforts in domestic, national and international affairs?

Please re-read the three bloggers cited above and answer the simple questions broached. And please avoid the often-complicated logical, philosophical, pietistic and moralistic truisms. We really don’t live in that kind of a world.

By the bye, I thought Gothardism was dead.

One trick, per Greg’s comment, regarding Gothardism is that just as Gothard borrowed a lot of his ideas—like I’m told from None of these diseases—a lot of Gothard’s ideas got borrowed by others. For example, Vision Forum and the Duggar family borrow(ed) a lot of his ideas, and you’ll still see hints of that in the craziest places, stuff like Josh Harris and I Kissed Dating Goodbye all the way to small fundamental publishing houses that don’t give you actual sources. So it’s hard to draw a hard line at who did, and did not, get impacted by his work.

[Rolland McCune]

G N Barkman, mmartin, Joeb

Thanks for the fresh air of common sense and common grace in your analyses of the continuing saga of our duly-elected president. Will the “Nevers” and their well-wishers ever stop nitpicking Mr. Trump to death? Since the sometimes decades-old evidences of his being an incorrigible life-long moral leper have subsided due to a lack of fresh, recent juicy tidbits, the certified moralism “character counts” has used up all its mileage. Now we are down to the second-tier complaints of his incompetence—his unflattering remarks at the stupidity of his enemies. Are the egos of the “Nevers” that easily bruised in judging his abilities and efforts in domestic, national and international affairs?

Please re-read the three bloggers cited above and answer the simple questions broached. And please avoid the often-complicated logical, philosophical, pietistic and moralistic truisms. We really don’t live in that kind of a world.

By the bye, I thought Gothardism was dead.

I try to understand your position Rolland and do to an extent. I am curious as to whether you understand the other side. For example, this is how I view Trump.

1) He is a bumbling fool in business who got an inheritance handed to him and then proceeded to grow his fortune through filing bankruptcies, stiffing his contractors, and getting government incentives. In spite of his cheating and working the system, he still would have done better putting his inheritance in a decent mutual fund.

2) He is a habitual liar. He has close to 10,000 lies on record since entering his current office. That is hardly “decades old” evidence of his morality.

3) He has no accomplishments in office really outside of perhaps appointing judges. Really, what has he done to further the US on the international stage? How has he helped anything in the US?

4) He has cheapened the national discourse though his petty insults and behavior. For that reason alone, the US will not be better off when we are finally rid of him.

Is he the worst president in history? Probably not. There were probably even more stupid, narcissistic presidents though thankfully, they were able to hide it because they did not have twitter. That is the silver lining to Donald J. Trump: we have probably survived worse and will probably survive him too.

Just wondering if you understand that viewpoint?

1. Thanks for the info on Gothardism. I didn’t buy it in its heyday, and the updated info confirms that decision.

2. Joeb: I resonate quite well with your thinking regarding the country’s choice of president and the attending reasons and circumstances. Your prognosis for 2020 is both reasonable and believable.

3. GregH: If your thinking represents “the other side,” I read the words but confess I don’t understand and thus tend not to believe your reasoning. The assumptions behind your conclusions seem impossible to document accurately. Who or what counted the 10000 lies? The president’s alleged lack of accomplishments, except the appointment of judges, is woefully understated and inaccurate. It is also most difficult to understand Mr. Trump as a bumbling fool to account for his rise in the real estate business in Manhattan. Of course, he got his father’s work ethic, money and business, and no doubt drove hard business deals, some of which were shady. But does that constitute the man a pathological liar and business crook, and further, disqualify him from being able to understand the basics of the nation’s financial and necessary business decisions?

Joeb put the scenario tersely but plausibly: “Whether you like Trump or not the other choices (were) insane …”

[Rolland McCune]

3. GregH: If your thinking represents “the other side,” I read the words but confess I don’t understand and thus tend not to believe your reasoning. The assumptions behind your conclusions seem impossible to document accurately. Who or what counted the 10000 lies? The president’s alleged lack of accomplishments, except the appointment of judges, is woefully understated and inaccurate. It is also most difficult to understand Mr. Trump as a bumbling fool to account for his rise in the real estate business in Manhattan. Of course, he got his father’s work ethic, money and business, and no doubt drove hard business deals, some of which were shady. But does that constitute the man a pathological liar and business crook, and further, disqualify him from being able to understand the basics of the nation’s financial and necessary business decisions?

We could debate Trump’s business acumen I suppose and his “accomplishments” as well. But I am not going to spend time arguing with a guy who can’t accept Trump is a habitual liar. There is just too wide a gulf between us. The Washington Post is keeping the tally which is up to around 10,000 now. You can go there and see for yourself. (And before you discount this as fake news, it is nothing of the sort. The Washington Post is capable of keeping track of factual black and white lies.)

GregH:

If your only clientele with whom you will debate current politics in the USA are those “guys” who agree with your sources and your pronouncement that President Trump is a “habitual liar,” the chances of anyone listening to or reading your ideas are less than nil. The accolade to the Washington Post was most discouraging. The old adage of the revered NY Yankee manager, Casey Stengel (“you can look it up!”; i.e., in your words,”go there and see for yourself”), could never be applied to the WAPO. They are incapable of keeping track of anything.

Why don’t you answer mmartin’s question about whom we should have voted for in the general election?

On your terms, I suppose “there is just too wide a gulf between us.”

One thing I’ve noticed about the Post’s “fact-checking” is that fairly often, they “helpfully” change the question and then declare that since the public figure didn’t answer the question they suggested correctly, that the public figure was lying. In other words, based on analysis of a position that the person clearly didn’t hold, the Post (Glenn Kessler is a good example) declares that person to be “lying”.

So no, Greg, the Post is not capable of figuring these things out, and they’ve proven it repeatedly. I don’t contend that Trump has been uniformly honest—he has, like most politicians, told his share of whoppers—but “Fact Check” has a habit of moving the goalposts and therefore disqualifies itself as a source. One example is linked (and fisked) here.

Regarding Trump’s achievements, while of course people of different political views will differ on the virtues or vices of his moves, those accomplishments include a reversal of Obama foreign policy, a big tax cut, a reversal of Obama military procurement policies which idled large parts of the Air Force and Navy for lack of spare parts, a semi-serious conversation about immigration and trade, a lot of good judges appointed, more U.S. citizen hostages released in 2 years than Obama got released in two terms, and a lot more.

But back to the topic, I think it’s important for both sides of the aisle (all sides?) to be a bit honest about things. Trump backers need to admit that he’s prone to whoppers—as do Obama supporters. (“If you like your doctor/insurance, you can keep your doctor/insurance”, “no scandals”, etc..) Get past the “I don’t care how obvious the call is, it worked for my team” mindset, and a lot of good things can happen.

[Rolland McCune]

GregH:

If your only clientele with whom you will debate current politics in the USA are those “guys” who agree with your sources and your pronouncement that President Trump is a “habitual liar,” the chances of anyone listening to or reading your ideas are less than nil. The accolade to the Washington Post was most discouraging. The old adage of the revered NY Yankee manager, Casey Stengel (“you can look it up!”; i.e., in your words,”go there and see for yourself”), could never be applied to the WAPO. They are incapable of keeping track of anything.

Why don’t you answer mmartin’s question about whom we should have voted for in the general election?

On your terms, I suppose “there is just too wide a gulf between us.”

I will ignore your strawman arguments about who I will or won’t discuss politics with.

It is just absurd how people have drunk the Trump Kool-Aid and decided that the WaPo is incapable of keeping track of simple facts. You need to read what kinds of lies they track. These are not WaPo opinions; they are simple situations where Trump claims things that are undeniably untrue. Trump is a prolific liar regardless of whether you want to admit it or not. But again, I am through arguing something so obvious.

As an aside, I am thankful for WaPo’s heroic courage in standing up to the Nixon administration and thankful they stand up to Trump as well.

I voted for no one in the last election. I will not vote for Trump in the coming election either though I might abstain. I would most certainly vote for a moderate Democrat over Trump. I would not vote for a radical Democrat over Trump; I would just abstain.

One of the more interesting topics that we covered in an international finance course in college was how OPEC can maximize the net present value of their assets.

The underlying idea here is that there were more factors to look for than just the short-term price of crude oil. Yes, OPEC does better in the short-term when prices are high. But high prices (or the long-term expectation of them) also encourage investment in alternative energy sources, more fuel efficient technologies, and more non-OPEC exploration. All of these tend to depress future revenue streams. Low short-term oil prices tend to have opposite long-term effects, but at the cost of immediate revenue pressure.

Recently, OPEC has issued guidance saying that they would like to target a global price of around $65 / barrel. It’s not too high, not too low.

The same analysis can be made for politics.

Trump has made policy decisions and appointments that Clinton would not have made. And for many political conservatives, Trump was, at least in the short-term, a better pick.

My reason for not supporting Trump in 2016 is the belief that his short-term gains would not be enough to outweigh the long-term detriment his tenure will cause to conservatism as a political movement. I believe the credibility and quality of future conservative candidates will be negatively affected by his tenure. Furthermore, his public personae is so extreme that it motivates many middle of the road voters to consider more liberal political candidates. Trump’s personality is certainly a causal factor for the Republicans’ underwhelming performance in the 2018 midterms and governors elections. Unfortunately, Trump has done nothing since winning the nomination to change my opinion on this matter.

GregH

Thank you for the interaction, as far as it went. Sorry it all landed in limbo..

The ending paragraph of your last post caught my eye immediately, and it troubled me. Disenfranchising yourself, for me least, cost you any credibility on this subject. How can you so dogmatically berate the president when you didn’t even bother to vote? It makes calling him a pathological liar (on the authority of WaPo, no less) and refusing to interact with anyone who disputes that alleged factoid a completely vacuous notion. The proposed criteria for the next election are no less grim.

I don’t expect serious Christians to like Trump. He’s a very obnoxious individual. But politics is not about who you like. (At least not for thinking Christians.) It’s about weighing the alterntives. If enough Christtians who voted for Trump in 2016 had refused to support him, Hillary Clinton would now be our president. Thank God that didn’t happen! That’s all that needs to be said. (Case closed.)