Christians in the Age of Trump

[G. N. Barkman]

Anyone who changes their mind about abortion or human sexuality because of Donald Trump has no convictions to begin with.

Do you think it would be legitimate for moderates to watch Falwell and his ilk defend Trump’s immorality as they do and decide that Christians are not worthy of a listen when they opine on moral issues such as abortion?

I think it would be very reasonable for them to come to that conclusion.

I don’t think “what’s reasonable” is really all that relevant. More important is “what’s persuasive?” When a political faction claims the moral high ground for decades then nominates and backs someone who is that far from the ideals they’ve made their identity, the claim to moral high ground loses much of its persuasive power. It becomes so easy for those who want to cry “hypocrisy” to do so because we have clearly failed to stay true to our principles.

Did they cry hypocrisy before Trump? Sure. The difference is that this time they’re mostly right. That doesn’t make their agenda or political philosophy right, but it makes ours a great deal less persuasive to the folks who are in the middle and/or trying to sort out what they believe.

It doesn’t even especially matter if their arguments are valid. I mean, inconsistency/hypocrisy doesn’t prove that claims are false. But it’s human nature. When people are inclined to be skeptical anyway, glaring inconsistencies make it easy for them to dismiss what someone’s saying.

It was reported recently that Bush Sr. had a longtime mistress. Reagan, of course, was divorced/remarried and made his career in Hollywood. Bush Jr. was an alcoholic in college and somewhat of a womanizer. FDR had a longtime mistress while president. JFK had many affairs while president. Nixon really did perform criminal behavior while president. No question that Trump was a longtime democrat and a New York playboy for years. He admits that he was a terrible husband, and he was. He’s not a Christian; not even close. For those reasons he was not my choice in the primaries. I voted for Cruz. He will be the Republican nominee in 2020. There will be two choices. Are you going to vote for the policies of open borders, abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, post birth infanticide, federal funding of abortion via removal of the Hyde amendment, socialism, economic suicide through the New Green Deal, anti-religious liberty, anti-law enforcement, anti-national defense/military, anti-second amendment, socialized medicine, free everything for illegals, shameless celebration of LGBTQ, the Equality Act, International capitulation to Russia, China, Islamic Terrorism and NK/Iranian nukes, liberal judges, liberal Supreme Court picks? Despite Trump’s personality and his past personal sins, I am going to vote for the policies that overall will help our country and preserve our liberties.

[Aaron Blumer]

Did they cry hypocrisy before Trump? Sure. The difference is that this time they’re mostly right. That doesn’t make their agenda or political philosophy right, but it makes ours a great deal less persuasive to the folks who are in the middle and/or trying to sort out what they believe.

Unfortunately, a lot of that charge of hypocrisy comes from the fact that too many true Christians used to buy in to the notion of America being a “Christian nation,” and even, to a lesser extent, the existence of a lot of “cultural Christianity” here, and from those, what we professed to desire in a leader. Once we give up that fiction for good, and get back to the idea that Christians are strangers in this world, more can vote for the national leader based on position rather than some supposed “Christian-ness” of the one being elected. I get that Clinton may have “appeared” in some ways a lot more Christian on the outside than Trump (not really all that hard), but a closer look at what both supported explains many (most?) of the votes for Trump. Clinton supporters mostly base their charges of hypocrisy on appearances rather than positions, obviously hoping that no one focuses on the substantive differences in position.

Yes, a lot of Christians voted for Trump out of what might seem to be pragmatism, but maybe is just a realization that we aren’t voting for a pastor of our church, but the leader of our nation, and while appearances do matter (“man looketh on the outward appearance”), positions actually matter more. Now as to whether the results of Trump being president are what we would like, that’s a more complicated question, though I agree with those who mention the judges/justices that have been confirmed as a result that may have been worth it all by itself. As I have stated before, while I would prefer Moses or Joshua as a leader, I’ll still take Samson any day over one of the Philistines.

[dcbii]

get back to the idea that Christians are strangers in this world

Couldn’t agree more. Christians in the US have a tendency to tie God and country together in a way that the early church did not.

[Aaron Blumer]

@Bert One can always find someone worse to compare someone to. It’s not anything like a useful standard.

Sure, but we’re not just talking about finding someone worse. We’re talking about putting worse into the #1 position of power and authority on the planet. You take your risks that #2 scumbag is not just a scumbag, but also an incredible liar about his positions, of course, but then you’ve got the same risk about #1 scumbag. A big part of pulling the lever for Trump for me was the realization that the Democrats in the Senate would not remove a Clinton from the White House when he was clearly guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, while even a lot of Republicans in the Senate seem to hate Trump’s guts and might jump on the chance to replace him with Mike Pence if Trump gave them the excuse.

“Might”, of course. Thankfully we’ve lucked out to a degree and I don’t see anything clearly yet that would be impeachable.

President Trump defends the rule of law. That’s the heart of the immigration debate. Should we ignore laws or enforce them? Congress has the power to change immigration laws, but chooses not to, and then complains about a president who endeavors to enforce laws as they exist. The legislature is responsible to enact laws which the administration is responsible to enforce. Those who are unwilling to enact change should not oppose those responsible to enforce. We are a nation of laws, and if we flout immigration laws today, what will we ignore tomorrow? How long before the United States descends into anarchy?

I would argue that when it comes to immigration, President Trump, despite his enforcement of the rule of law in some areas of his immigration policy, has also broken the law to defend the rule of law. Sadly Trump, politicians (from both the left and right), and Mainstream and Social Media Pundits are lumping illegal immigrants and asylum seekers/refugees all together as one for their political purposes. The left lump illegal immigrants and asylum seekers together because they want open borders, while the right lump everyone together because they believe the fear narrative that we are, in fact, letting in criminals disguised as asylum seekers. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States, whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 No matter what Trump and his supporters say, asylum seekers have not broken US law. On a side note, by not allowing asylum seekers to make their case for Asylum, we are also breaking the international treaty of the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees—which the United States has signed, which affirms the 1951 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees that “refugees shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all contracting states” and that they shall enjoy “the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the courts.”

But when the US Department of Homeland Security turns away asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border, both at and between official ports-of-entry. they are breaking US law. When the US Department of Homeland Security requires asylum-seekers at the US–Mexico border to wait in Mexico during the pendency of their asylum claims, they are again breaking US law.

Again I have no problem securing the borders, whether it be a real wall or a cyber wall in order to respect the rule of law. But I have serious issues when Trump breaks a current law that’s been in place for almost 55 years in the name of “upholding the rule of law.” That is ungodly pragmatism that often times conservative Christians will overlook or justify. If Trump doesn’t like the law, then he needs to get Congress to change it through our legislative process, not through an executive order. There needs to be a more just and humane way of addressing Asylum Seekers (that can also protect our border) and I don’t trust either the left who is running as fast as it can towards an ungodly socialism nor the right, which is running towards an ungodly nationalism, to do it.

[G. N. Barkman]

Some who dislike my article object because they disapprove of what appears to be too much political pragmatism. They believe Christians should apply fundamental principles of righteousness to their selection of candidates, disregarding totally the pragmatic questions of what is realistically possible in our broken world.

And yet, some of these same objectors raise issues of what non-Christians might think about Christians who support an un-Christlike candidate. In essence, using pragmatic speculations of what people may or may not think to determine what Christians ought to do. If the fundamental concern is to follow Christian principles of righteousness regardless of political realities, why should we make speculation about what others may think a factor in our decisions?

This is an interesting question and got me thinking…

I for one am not arguing that results should be ignored entirely. I guess the way it comes together for me is something like this:

• how to the short-term results weigh against the long-term results?
• how does the likelihood of one set of results weigh against the likelihood of other results?
• how do the results of the alternatives weigh against other (non-result) factors?

Of course, it’s possible to frame all the factors as results, since all of them would come after taking action and wouldn’t occur otherwise. If one wants to go that route, it all becomes a question of which results matter most. It’s probably easier to focus, in this case, on electoral results vs. the results of long-term persuasiveness vs. the inherent morality of an act (having the result of God’s pleasure or displeasure… but this is a pretty different kind of result).

As an example of what I mean by inherent morality of an act, we could consider some variation of the many dilemmas used in ethics discussions. All of them pretty unrealistic because they’re trying to focus in on where a specific difficulty lies. Say you’re kidnapped by an evil madman. He tells you that he’s planted a bomb in a hospital nursery and if you don’t hit the big red button, the bomb’s going to go off. But if you do hit the big red button, another bomb in another nursery will go off—one with half as many babies in it.

Pure utilitarianism would say you’ve got to hit the big red button. Does Christian ethics say hit the big red button and kill a bunch of babies in order to save a larger number?

I’ve read fiction with dilemmas like these in the story and what I always want the character to do is say, “You know what, evil madman? I don’t have to play your game at all. What seems to be caused by my inaction is actually caused by your action. I don’t have anything to do with this and you don’t have the power to make it my responsibility.” …. But what would I actually do? I’m not sure I’d be that rational at that moment. But my point is that the Christian way is a very different way than “best result right now” or “me being happy right now” or even “me not feeling guilty right now.” We have to look at the act of hitting the button and murdering innocents regardless of the relative results.

My view of 2016 was somewhat analogous. The two “electables” on the ticket didn’t get there by any action of mine and I did not see myself as responsible in any way for the outcome of my refusing to choose one of them. I did see myself as responsible for who I backed with my individual vote. So I said to both parties: sorry; if you can’t do better than this, I’m opting out.

[Joel Shaffer]

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, anyone “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States, whether or not at a designated port of arrival” may apply for asylum. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 No matter what Trump and his supporters say, asylum seekers have not broken US law.

While it’s true that the application for asylum itself is not breaking the law, the person may still be guilty of entering the U.S. illegally if they did not come through a port of entry, and any such violation should not, in my opinion, be decriminalized.

Further, the law you quoted does in fact have an exception clause that allows removal to a safe 3rd country (like Mexico for those coming from further south) if they can apply for asylum there. Also, the Attorney general is permitted to establish a procedure for consideration of the applications filed. I can’t see anything in the law that would disallow “remain in Mexico” while the application is considered (unless Mexico is the source of the persecution — like e.g. those being sought after by drug cartels).

Finally, there is a clause about applying frivolously, which, it could be argued, applies to many or most of those requesting asylum while actually being economic “refugees.” In short, requesting asylum is not a free pass to “stay in the US and disappear into the woodwork.” Any who arrive at a port of entry, or are brought into the US by government agents should be willing to be tracked, maybe electronically, while their application is in progress if staying in a border facility is too onerous. The fact that most disappear is the reason that “stay in Mexico” has become a reasonable plan, and as far as I can tell, would be legal for many refugees.

Trump may indeed be overstepping the bounds of the asylum laws, but the U.S. cannot permit its generous asylum policies to be abused in the way they currently are, and the administration should be doing everything it can within the bounds of the law to stop all of the abuse.

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I’m unwilling to just be silent while the asylum laws are interpreted in the way that is the most disadvantageous to the U.S.

The president is not elected by the direct vote. You could have agonized over your personal vote for months before the election in 2016, and if, in the end, you reluctantly voted for Trump and you voted in California, then your vote counted for absolutely nothing and did absolutely nothing to elect Trump as all of California’s electoral votes went to Clinton. Or you could have been a Never-Trump voter from North Carolina who worked hard to convince other NC voters to not vote for Trump. You showed up first in line to cast your vote against Trump, and then you stood there all day passing out anti-Trump literature. Your vote did nothing, as the state of NC gave all of its electoral college votes to Trump.

What about the reluctant Trump voter from Wisconsin or Michigan? Those who felt guilty over the agonizing choice to vote for Trump in Wisconsin or Michigan—two battleground states that went to Trump by a very narrow margin and helped push him over 270?

I would suggest these voters, who did impact the outcome of the election in a more meaningful way, still operated under the principle of voting for the lesser of two evils, and did the best they could given the choices.

I have never viewed voting as synonymous to endorsing. I view voting as simply my privilege as a citizen to say that of the two options, I prefer candidate A over candidate B. Unfortunately, there are times when my vote is little more than saying, I am voting to stop candidate B even though candidate A is nearly as bad.

What pushed Trump over the top in 2016 was his promise to nominate conservative judges. This promise helped to pull in enough of the lesser-of-two-evils voters as it provided a needed distinction between the two candidates. Trump was not as bad as Clinton if he kept that promise. Two and a half years into his first term it is fair to say Trump has kept that promise.

But I simply do not understand why some view the voting booth as a place for uneasy consciences. Trump could have lied and not kept his promise and the uneasy reluctant Trump voters would feel like fools. But that’s the chance you take given the information you have. Trump bears the responsibility for his actions in office, and the voters who put him there do not bear that responsibility. The only responsibility the voters bear is their decision based on the information available on election day. That information included a promise from Trump that he would nominate conservative judges. If he lied about that, then that would be on Trump. But if he was telling the truth (and it appears he did), then it was worth a shot at getting something Clinton would never give us.

But the voting booth is no place for uneasy consciences. You take the information you have, and vote the best you can, and trust God with the results, knowing that politicians often lie, and sometimes they do what they say they will do.

I’ll be voting for Trump in 2020

Greg, I’m a latecomer to this thread, but thanks for this article. I agree.

I vociferously opposed Trump during the 2016 primaries and was chagrined at the number of Christians who enthusiastically supported him given the other much better Republican alternatives. However, once he was nominated, the nature of the choice changed. I tell people that choosing between Trump and Clinton felt like being asked to choose between having either a load of cow manure or a load of toxic waste dumped into my living room. Although the cow manure stinks up the whole environment, it is at least good for fertilizer; the toxic waste would have destroyed the environment and literally killed people. I chose the cow manure, and I’m living with the expected stench. The fertilizer has been very useful at the Supreme Court. I don’t regret my choice when I consider the alternative.