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
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.
The focus of this thread isn’t the four Representatives. It’s Donald Trump. That’s why we’re talking about this.
Furthermore, we have plenty of Scripture on how to treat our enemies. Calling them names and treating them rudely isn’t included in any of them.
"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
[Jay]Furthermore, we have plenty of Scripture on how to treat our enemies. Calling them names and treating them rudely isn’t included in any of them.
On this, we can agree.
Dave Barnhart
[GregH] Nationalism is on the rise…
Greg, I have no idea what you mean by this and why you think it is bad. I would have equated “nationalism” with patriotism and wanting our country to stay strong and secure. But it doesn’t sound like you are using it that way.
AndyE, I am not sure how GregH meant the usage of the term nationalism.
From what I have read from those on the left, democrats, socialists, etc., other countries of the world are allowed to secure their borders, decide which immigrants to allow in, maintain their historic cultural identities, and negotiate with other countries having their own best interests in mind; however, when it comes to the USA, the country is automatically at fault for having been successful, and therefore social justice demands the USA must open its borders, yielding any right to administrate who enters and stays, and must yield its cultural identity and give away most of its assets to other countries who are in greater need. And anyone who tries to stop that is labeled a ‘nationalist’ even though all other countries are free to operate that way. That’s the general idea—I might have left out a few points, but I think that’s how the term nationalist is often understood on the left in a derogatory way.
Again, I am NOT saying that is how GregH meant the use of the term.
[AndyE]Greg, I have no idea what you mean by this and why you think it is bad. I would have equated “nationalism” with patriotism and wanting our country to stay strong and secure. But it doesn’t sound like you are using it that way.
The media doesn’t use it the way it’s been commonly understood for years either. They take one component and make it the sum total. Consider this definition from dictionary.com:
[dictionary.com]nationalism: noun
1. spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
2. devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism.
3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4. the desire for national advancement or political independence.
5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
It’s not until you get to the 3rd definition that you find something negative, and it’s the only truly negative one out of the 6 (although I’m sure there are some who would also consider definition #5 to be a negative). I would argue that 1,2,4,5, and 6 are all components of nationalism, and the way that most people understand it. Somehow, though, the 3rd definition has become the only way that the media and those on the left view nationalism, making it wholly a negative. Viewed in that light only (and given the media, that’s all people will hear these days), it’s understandable that many think of nationalism as a negative, rather than something good, right, and normal for the citizens of a democratic country.
Dave Barnhart
[AndyE]Greg, I have no idea what you mean by this and why you think it is bad. I would have equated “nationalism” with patriotism and wanting our country to stay strong and secure. But it doesn’t sound like you are using it that way.
I could substitute “extreme nationalism” for nationalism I suppose. I am not referring to flying a US flag. I am referring to the kind of thinking perhaps mostly associated with German philosophy in the 19th century that led to genocide and other problems culminating with Hitler in the 20th century. One component of that is racial and/or cultural superiority. One thing that is very clear is that while I am not accusing Trump of being that way, he speaks to and is the hero of many of these kinds of nationalists (or whatever other term you want to label them with).
Here are some self-proclaimed “white nationalists” and note how they responded to Trump’s tweets: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-trump-racist-tweets-soh/index.html
[GregH]Here are some self-proclaimed “white nationalists” and note how they responded to Trump’s tweets: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/16/politics/white-supremacists-cheer-trump-racist-tweets-soh/index.html
So the intended point here seems to be using the following logic:
- A says X
- B likes X
- Therefore A is essentially B.
And people wonder why the media is mistrusted.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]So the intended point here seems to be using the following logic:
- A says X
- B likes X
- Therefore A is essentially B.
And people wonder why the media is mistrusted.
I feel no need to defend that article but I am not sure you read it critically. I did not see the article say that Trump was a white supremacist or a white nationalist or for that matter a racist. It simply reported that some of those kinds of people liked his tweets. You may consider it biased that they reported this in the first place; indeed many Trump supporters hate for the media to say bad things about him. I think personally the connection to be newsworthy.
And by the way, me pointing out this article does not mean I equated Trump to these clowns either. In fact, I expressly stated the opposite.
[GregH]I feel no need to defend that article but I am not sure you read it critically. I did not see the article say that Trump was a white supremacist or a white nationalist or for that matter a racist. It simply reported that some of those kinds of people liked his tweets. You may consider it biased that they reported this in the first place; indeed many Trump supporters hate for the media to say bad things about him. I think personally the connection to be newsworthy.
And by the way, me pointing out this article does not mean I equated Trump to these clowns either. In fact, I expressly stated the opposite.
Greg,
I’m sorry if I didn’t make clear enough that I was decrying what the article was saying, not what you posted. I did specifically state that people should distrust the media, and that was not referring to you.
I went back to see if I was reading too much into the article, and it still seems to me the authors are implying that Trump is as “racist” as the white supremacists. This section:
[CNN]Trump tweeted Tuesday he did not have “a Racist bone in my body.”
His opponents have lined up to set the record straight including the targeted congresswomen, presidential candidates and a handful of members of the Republican Party.
sure seems to me that it’s intended to show that Trump is indeed racist when his opponents “set the record straight.” Yes, the way it’s written, it’s possible for the authors to disclaim that they agree with the sentiment, but that’s not how it naturally reads. I still say the authors are playing fast and loose with their wording to get the reader to come to the conclusion that they’ve shown Trump is, in fact, racist.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]Greg,
I’m sorry if I didn’t make clear enough that I was decrying what the article was saying, not what you posted. I did specifically state that people should distrust the media, and that was not referring to you.
No worries. I appreciate the clarification.
Can’t respond to everything but I’ll touch on a few themes:
- Trump’s most recent tweets: they are more of the usual, and so not all that remarkable. They are just another example of the fact that President Trump’s evaluation of what means should be used to achieve ends is basically, “Whatever means I feel like using and that I can probably get away with.” To those who think the tweets can be separated from the man…
…For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. (Mt 12:34–35)
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. (Pr 15:2)
The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly. (Pr 15:14)
…and so many more.
- Racism - this accusation is hardest to solidly prove and really kind of redundant in light of all the really obvious character problems. I don’t personally put much energy into that question.
- Why criticize Trump for lack of respect but not criticize the dems for it - Because we’re supposed to expect “our guy” to be better than the opposition party. It makes no sense to say “I had to vote for him because the alternative was so much worse,” then when he acts as bad as the other side turn around and say “Yeah, well what about the other side?!” It’s meaningless at that point. Asking the question is admitting they’re acting the same way.
- Nationalism - there’s been a lengthy debate on that over at National Review. All agree that there are healthy and unhealthy forms of the sorts of things people call nationalism. Where it’s unhealthy in Trump’s case is the lack of context: he doesn’t have the awareness or appreciation for the role that virtue played in the society envisioned by the founding fathers. And so he cherry picks some virtues to shout about while demonstrating a general lack of virtue that makes the shouting’ frightening to people who live in dread of fascism. I don’t know how likely creeping fascism is in Trump’s case, but I do think it’s unwise to give him another four years to find out. There is certainly no evidence that anything internal would restrain him. Fortunately, our government is built on a separation of powers that would make it very difficult for him to really get there. He could do much damage to the office of President and confidence in the Constitution along the way, though!
- Civil society is not the church - This is another of the many red herrings in this debate. Nobody thinks Presidents should have the qualifications of pastors or that the government should be run like the church. The country was built, however, on belief in virtue. Values like respect, honesty, fairness, dignity, reason, restraint/moderation, and so many more, are not uniquely church standards. They’re the kinds of things humans everywhere want from the other humans they interact with. This is what I’m talking about when I say Trump is anti-conservative. Nobody who shows as little regard for basic virtues has even begun to understand what should be conserved in American government and policy.
I’ll wrap up with a revisit to a biblical principle in the article: the Christian way of thinking about ethics is that how ends are accomplished is just as important as what ends are accomplished (it appears as early as Cain and Abel!).
I’d love to see more of the Trump supporters interact with that principle. When do ends justify means? How do we determine what means are justifiable at all, and if they are what is required to justify them? It’s not enough to say “I had to vote this way to prevent a result.” How does the result justify the means? (I started working on this the other day, and filled a page with notes pretty quickly… there are at least two phases: means analysis and ends analysis. Some means need no justification. Some require very little justification. Some quite a bit. Some cannot be justified at all. … too large of a topic to take further just now, but is anyone else even thinking about it?)
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.
I appreciate your comments Aaron, but when I read, “I don’t know how likely creeping fascism is in Trump’s case, but I do think it’s unwise to give him another four years to find out…”
I couldn’t help but think how the media has been very careful to craft the narrative that Trump singularly and conservatism in general leads toward fascism when in fact it is the socialists on the other side of the aisle who would be more likely to bring out that end through their environmental extremism, social justice, limitations on free speech, etc. I mean just yesterday I read that Chuck Schumer, the Demoratic senator minority leader wants to push ahead for slavery reparations—but we should ignore that, and worry instead that Trump is going to go fascist?
You worry about that risk with Trump but would turn over power to the party who actual could go there?
[Darrell Post]I appreciate your comments Aaron, but when I read, “I don’t know how likely creeping fascism is in Trump’s case, but I do think it’s unwise to give him another four years to find out…”
I couldn’t help but think how the media has been very careful to craft the narrative that Trump singularly and conservatism in general leads toward fascism when in fact it is the socialists on the other side of the aisle who would be more likely to bring out that end through their environmental extremism, social justice, limitations on free speech, etc. I mean just yesterday I read that Chuck Schumer, the Demoratic senator minority leader wants to push ahead for slavery reparations—but we should ignore that, and worry instead that Trump is going to go fascist?
This is another false choice. It is possible to be concerned about creeping fascism from both the left and from Trump.
And I’ll echo a bit of my last post: “our guy” is supposed to be better. He’s not supposed to be even close to the same sort of expansion of government power favored by the left.
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.
The problem is, one of the two will be in power, there is no third choice. In 2016 it was going to be Clinton or Trump. In 2020 it will be Trump or the winner of the democrat nomination (Socialist Bernie Sanders, Socialist Kamala Harris, or Socialist Elizabeth Warren). So one has to decide which of these options is less likely to lead to fascism, and to me it is abundantly clear that the greater risk is with the democratic/socialist party.
“He’s not supposed to be even close to the same sort of expansion of government power favored by the left.”
Actually, Trump has rolled back many of the Obama-era policies that had expanded government power. So on this one, you got your wish.
When do ends justify means?
Are you confusing multiple ends? I think you are assuming that multiple ends are one end. What is the legitimate means of judicial appointments? Electing a president with the power to nominate and electing senators with the power to advise and consent.
Electing a president to do that is not pragmatic. It is the ethical way of doing it.
Discussion