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
“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”
We all agree Aaron that how ends are accomplished are important. But again, the how was not an option on the 2016 ballot. Both candidates were not fit for the office. So as long as that was the case, it seemed the prudent choice to get life-time appointed judges who were fit for their offices, and who would embody the ethics you long for in leaders. And thankfully, these judges will influence society long after Trump is gone.
You have listed the virtues you seek in a leader you can vote for several times. You have also pointed out several times that comparing “our side” with theirs isn’t legitimate. OK. Whatever you say.
I am curious then. And this is not a gotcha question. Can you name the last president that you supported when you voted for them? I mean, who really fit this bill?
Then, please list a national political leader that you hope would run against Trump or in the Democrat primary that has these values. Or, as a third option, you can choose that your standards are not realistic for someone running for a secular political office in 2019 America.
[Aaron Blumer]
Agreed! Of course our guy is “supposed” to be better.
However, that was not the real choice we had in 2016 and we won’t have again in 2020. Both options were bad then and they will be again next year.
But with Trump, we conservatives at least have a chance of upholding conservative values. With the other side the exact opposite is true.
Meanwhile we fuss over what negative impact Trump might have on our country as opposed to what the other side will do. Either option is not at all ideal.
I’ll be voting for Trump (as in against the Democratic candidate) for the reason I stated here.
That isn’t pragmatism. That isn’t denial of his flaws. That isn’t voting FOR Trump.
That is simply choosing the lesser poison of the only two viable options (of candidates who have a chance of winning the election).
Mark: I am sure Aaron will answer on his own but the republicans would do a lot better with someone like Ben Sasse. I have concerns about him but at least he appears to have some principles.
“It’s a head scratcher to me that voting for Trump is not actually a vote for him but rather a vote against the democrat while a vote for third party is a vote for the democrat or not a vote at all.”
Not a head scratcher at all. Either Trump or Clinton was going to be president in 2016. If you wanted any real say in the outcome you had to vote for one or the other.
[josh p]It’s a head scratcher to me that voting for Trump is not actually a vote for him but rather a vote against the democrat while a vote for third party is a vote for the democrat or not a vote at all.
I feel in 2016 this was definitely accurate, that a a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrats. By all reports leading up to the election Hillary was expected to defeat Trump, but only Trump had any chance to defeat Hillary. So, in this case, yes, a vote for a third party was at least some vote “for” Hillary. If you didn’t want Hillary as president, then you had to cast your ballot for Trump.
I’d be willing to bet that most people voting “for” Trump were in reality voting against Hillary. This was my case.
[mmartin]I’d be willing to bet that most people voting “for” Trump were in reality voting against Hillary. This was my case.
Definitely true here as well. I remember talking with some people after the election, but still in late November or early December, and they asked me if I was happy that Trump was elected. I said that I honestly didn’t know, and that I had no idea what kind of president he would be, but that I was really happy that Clinton wasn’t elected. With Clinton, I knew what I’d be getting, but with Trump, the jury was still out.
Dave Barnhart
We all agree Aaron that how ends are accomplished are important. But again, the how was not an option on the 2016 ballot.
Actually it was. Every vote is a “how.” A vote for a man of extremely poor character is a “how.” This is the point I’ve been trying to make. The act of authorizing such a man to rule needs to be considered on its own, distinct form the alternative secondary consequences of not authorizing him.
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
There are actually third and fourth and fifth options. The assumption in these arguments is that one must back an electable candidate. Why? Third option: write in. Fourth option: vote for a third party candidate. Fifth option: don’t vote. (I don’t necessarily recommend any of these in particular, but to point out that these options do exist.)
I am curious then. And this is not a gotcha question. Can you name the last president that you supported when you voted for them? I mean, who really fit this bill?
Then, please list a national political leader that you hope would run against Trump or in the Democrat primary that has these values.
Absolutely any one of the other candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016 would have been “close enough.” They were all flawed but fundamentally decent human beings, grown ups, and possessing at least some convictions beyond defeating the opposition.
Somebody mentioned Sasse. Sure. And so many others. The party literally chose the worst man available.
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.
Aaron, not if you wanted a say in the outcome. Either Trump or Clinton was going to be my president and your president. “Extremely poor character” was going to be a given no matter who won.There was no escape from this reality once both these candidates won their party’s nomination. So one had a choice of having a say in the outcome, or choosing to not have a say in the outcome, allowing others to choose which of these two options would be your president. You chose to have no say in the outcome as is your right. I chose to try to have a say in the outcome and get a shot at conservative life-time appointed judges. (I say try because in the end all 13 electoral votes from VA went to Clinton). I am glad we got those judges, although I wish it had been a person of better character who nominated them. But there was nothing I could do about it once the options were Trump or Clinton. We do not live in a world where everything is neat and clean, and often there are judgment calls that need to be made. I respect your right to vote how you choose. I am still glad we got the judges Trump nominated. And I don’t view it at all as an ends-justify-the-means sort of thing because the means (the how) was going to be a President of low character—that was an inescapable reality. So in that this was a given, there was no value to throwing away a chance at the good judges. Like I said before, each of the two candidates offered a product. Of the two one promised conservative life-time appointed judges. The other option did not.
“Absolutely any one of the other candidates for the GOP nomination in 2016 would have been “close enough.” They were all flawed but fundamentally decent human beings, grown ups, and possessing at least some convictions beyond defeating the opposition.”
Aaron, I want to gently push back on this statement. I say gently, because I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, as I favored any of the other 16 options over Trump. You have decided the other 16 were close enough to meet the standards you are looking for. Bear in mind these other 16 were all politicians. Trump was not. Politicians are masters at managing their public image. At all costs they want to avoid that dreaded open-mic gaffe that could doom their candidacy and career. Virginia used to have a GOP senator who was once touted as possible POTUS timber, but one careless comment into an open mic and his career was finished.
Where I am going with this, is these other 16 may all appear to you to be decent human beings, to be grown-ups with solid convictions, but that may not be the case with all of them. For instance, I learned enough about some of those 16 to draw the conclusion that under the surface they might not be that far behind Trump in terms of having the right temperament for the job. Some said this very thing at the time about Ted Cruz—and I was for Cruz at the end to find a way to stop Trump.
But Trump was never a politician and has always worn his behavior on his sleeve. Oddly, during the campaign everyone kept expecting each and every Trump ‘gaffe’ to be the one that would doom him, but it never did. His most loyal followers saw it as transparency rather than the phoniness that often comes from the career politician. Even so, Trump could only manage around 30% of the vote in the first 30 or so states, and he was able to use the large and splintered GOP field of candidates to his advantage as they were all competing for the vote of those who wanted a career politician while Trump was running alone in the lane of voters who were fed up with politicians and wanted someone who was transparent (warts and all).
So I still agree with you that of the 17 GOP options, Trump was the worst. But the gap between his behavior (which is public) and the behavior of many of the other 16, might not be as wide as we might think, given the others all behave like politicians—carefully managing and hiding the same behaviors Trump boldly does openly.
I was originally for Scott Walker because he seemed to have the fight in him, but wasn’t mean-spirited or anything like that. He seemed genuine to me. But he didn’t even make it to the primaries.
Aaron, I continue to be surprised at the level of subjectivism in your opposition to Trump. What standards do you use to determine that the other GOP Primary candidates are acceptable to you, but Trump was not? I don’t question your right to make such decisions subjectively (or emotionally), but I am surprised that you don’t realize what you are doing. The difference between Trump and the others is purely a matter of degrees, and the criterion for determining the degrees is very opinionated. In other words, Trump has clearly rubbed you the wrong way to the degree that you refuse to support him regardless of all other considerations. Other candidates have managed to avoid irritating you to the necessary degree. But where exactly is that magic line, and how do you decide when it has been crossed? I understand that you are attempting to be principled in who gets your vote, rather than pragmatic, but “principled” and “pragmatic” turn out to be quite subjective, and simply a matter of degrees.
To me, it is much more objective to weigh the available alternatives and vote for the candidate who seems most likely to advance the agenda that most closely aligns with my own. This also includes endeavoring to defeat the candidate who is most opposed to my own agenda. Anything else is wasting a valuable vote. I am committed to making my vote count as much as possible.
G. N. Barkman
There really should be an article … “Christians in the age of Nero”
THAT would put this discussion into a better perspective.
Sometimes I think we (Christians) would be better if we were prohibited from voting!
We would pray more after this pattern:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
1 Timothy 2:1-3
Round and round we go…. Same arguments over and over and some just don’t listen much less try to accept the reality that there are multiple legitimate ways of looking at this.
It will never be resolved but when will it stop? Hopefully 2020 but worse case 2024. :)
On the argument that I’m subjective in my evaluation of candidates’ character.
This is literally true, but not true in spirit. What I mean is that all judgments of the character of individuals are subjective, in that the person doing the evaluation has to rely on observations and make inferences about what sort of person behaves in that way. Looking at Stalin and declaring him to be an evil man is a “subjective” act, in that sense. On the other hand, it’s not subjective in the sense that there are no facts from which to make the observations. So is it subjective in the sense of “just guessing”? Not remotely.
I kind of want to move on from the Trump topic, but it may be helpful to write a separate article on, say, the top ten facts upon which I judge his character. There is not really much room for guesswork!
I want to point out, too, that Proverbs clearly identifies the qualities of a “fool” and encourages us to use those symptoms, if you will, to make diagnoses. The diagnosis is necessarily a bit subjective (in the sense of uncertain, and involving personal judgment) but the more facts there are, the more certain the diagnosis becomes.
On having a say in the outcome
The argument is that if you vote for someone who is not electable, you forfeit a say in the outcome of the election. A couple observations on that:
- Even if true, is it obvious that it’s right to “have a say” under all circumstances or wrong to not have a say? (Or even morally better to “have a say” than not to?)
- It’s not really true. If you reject both candidates as too problematic to authorize for leadership, you are having a say in the outcome.
- Those votes still count. Though admittedly not for very much. When Ross Perot died, many articles noted the relatively high percentage of votes he was able to gain as a third party candidate and what those meant. … as well as their impact.
- Even if one votes for a write-in and that vote is the only one he gets, or it’s discarded on the basis of electoral procedural rules, the act of voting for a decent man still happened. Nobody can make it unhappen. Even if it’s never noticed by anyone but you and God, you “had a say” and you said it. And, come to think of it, you said it in front of the most important Audience of all, if you get my meaning.
- I anticipate the objection that “but this has no impact.” Maybe not. Impact isn’t everything.
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.
[GregH]It will never be resolved but when will it stop? Hopefully 2020 but worse case 2024.
You do realize that in 2024 if the Lord tarries and SI is still here, that we will probably be arguing over whoever is in office then, right? I remember all too well all the hand-wringing over whether any Christian could vote for Romney (a Mormon). If he had gotten in, I suspect the arguments might not look exactly the same or be quite as vehement, but there would have been the charges of pragmatism, selling principle short, sacrificing the future for the immediate, etc. I agree that Trump makes it a lot easier to make those cases, but it would have been done anyway, and will again in 2020, 2024, 2028…
Dave Barnhart
Discussion