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 Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service.
- 47 views
Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood against Hitler and it cost him his life. Very brave man.
Pastor Mike Harding
[Larry]Am I missing something here?
Two things:
- I didn’t know this was a retired pastor on a personal blog. I missed that.
- I don’t think that matters much since as a pastor, we cannot separate our personal views from our public calling. It’s not worth it.
Imagine the number of people who hear a pastor say something about a politician, and refuse to listen to them about anything else. And about 50% of the people are on “the other side” whatever side that is. Why in the world would a pastor want to take a chance that someone would not listen to the gospel because he vented or praised a politician?
I understand that position. I do find it ironic that your words condemn yourself though. You have certainly spoken out on this issue here on this thread to the extent that you would turn off many that disagree with you politically.
I don’t think that was necessary, Greg. It was an honest mistake.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood against Hitler and it cost him his life. Very brave man.
Today’s church needs more Bonhoeffers. The good news is that we’re probably going to get more of them, but the bad news is that society is going downhill so fast that they may very well get the chance to suffer or be martyred like he was as well.
"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]I don’t think that was necessary, Greg. It was an honest mistake.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood against Hitler and it cost him his life. Very brave man.
Today’s church needs more Bonhoeffers. The good news is that we’re probably going to get more of them, but the bad news is that society is going downhill so fast that they may very well get the chance to suffer or be martyred like he was as well.
According to Larry, a pastor should really not take stands on politicians on a personal blog. My point is that he has done the exact same thing here (which is equivalent to a personal blog, more or less).
I do find it ironic that your words condemn yourself though. You have certainly spoken out on this issue here on this thread to the extent that you would turn off many that disagree with you politically. …
According to Larry, a pastor should really not take stands on politicians on a personal blog. My point is that he has done the exact same thing here (which is equivalent to a personal blog, more or less).
Did you consider that if you think my own words condemn me that you haven’t actually understood my words? Why would you think I would say something that would condemn myself?
The explanation is quite simple: This is a very narrow forum for ministry discussion (it’s not a personal blog) about what ministers should do and how we should approach the culture in our thinking. That is quite different than a pastor in his church or community. So I think you actually haven’t understood what I am saying.
And I think there are times when a pastor might, on a personal blog or personal conversation, engage on this issue with value to readers of all stripes. I have done it before on my blog to a small degree. Even here, I have made it clear what I think of Trump and why I have said what I have. I don’t think it has been confusing. So I don’t understand the angst over this.
Greg, if someone had said about Obama the kinds of things they have said about Trump (and there were opportunities to do so in many regards), I have a hard time thinking you would have been as receptive. Why do you think that is?
It would indeed be foolish to go out on a limb and endorse or bash a political figure if the text one is preaching doesn’t demand it.
What text demands the endorsing or bashing of a political figure for political reasons?
His job is to tell the truth.
Actually it’s a bit more narrow than that. His job is to preach the word and the truth that is in the word.
[Larry]Did you consider that if you think my own words condemn me that you haven’t actually understood my words?
No, I think I am quite capable of understanding your words and you have been quite clear.
[Larry]The explanation is quite simple: This is a very narrow forum for ministry discussion (it’s not a personal blog) about what ministers should do and how we should approach the culture in our thinking. That is quite different than a pastor in his church or community. So I think you actually haven’t understood what I am saying.
And I think there are times when a pastor might, on a personal blog or personal conversation, engage on this issue with value to readers of all stripes. I have done it before on my blog to a small degree. Even here, I have made it clear what I think of Trump and why I have said what I have. I don’t think it has been confusing. So I don’t understand the angst over this.
OK. You see SI different than a personal blog. I am not so sure. I know you don’t use your last name here but with a little work, a possible visitor to your church might find your words here, attribute them to you and be in the 50% that is offended. Maybe that happens and maybe it doesn’t. I am not saying you are wrong in any way. I just found it interesting that you gave that reason to not discuss Trump publicly when you have been discussing Trump on this thread.
[Larry]Greg, if someone had said about Obama the kinds of things they have said about Trump (and there were opportunities to do so in many regards), I have a hard time thinking you would have been as receptive. Why do you think that is?
I am not sure I see any relevance. It appears you are trying to deflect and I am quite sure you don’t know my political views. So, because your question is based on an invalid presumption, I am not sure why I should answer.
I will say this. Obama would not be discussed here in the same way Trump has been for a few reasons. First of all, at least from what we can see, Obama generally appears to be a much higher quality person than Trump and is harder to attack on the same grounds. Second, the main point here is not as much about Trump but rather a discussion of how/why conservative Christianity decided to hitch their wagon to him. That did not happen with Obama.
On my part, there is no angst. If I came across with angst, that was my mistake. I was trying to sort of gently point out an inconsistency and I am not even saying you were wrong in it.
I think that in general preachers should avoid politics from the pulpit (although we might all define “politics” differently - one man’s patriotism is another man’s politics, for example).
However, I see no reason why a pastor can’t have a political opinion and can’t express it, especially on his own blog or any other where he comments.
However, discussing this point will distract from the main point, which is the somewhat bizarre alliance between Trump and conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists. I understand the reasons for it politically and tend to share those reasons, but it is still a bizarre alliance. That is why we are having the discussion, in my opinion.
It would be better to simply acknowledge that it is a bizarre alliance rather than to pretend that it is not. Trump is no hero from the Christian perspective. He does advance some causes Christians support, so to the degree that he does, Christians will generally support him. I just wish they were a little less “fanboy” about it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
I agree. Well said.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
No, I think I am quite capable of understanding your words and you have been quite clear.
Based on what I have said and what I meant and what you have apparently inferred, I don’t think you understand. I am not sure how you would know better what I mean than I do. I don’t mean to be snide there, but if I say you are not rightly understanding me, I don’t know how you could disagree. I am not an expert on much of anything, but I have a pretty good idea of what I mean by something, even if I am not as clear as I think I am.
OK. You see SI different than a personal blog. I am not so sure.
A personal blog is a blog where the owner of the blog is the author. This isn’t really even a blog. It is a forum or what used to be called a bulletin board. It is a community, not a personal blog. And yes, someone could find me here and I would not be troubled by that. Again, I think that indicates you don’t understand my point.
I have been discussing Trump only in the context of a larger philosophy of civic duty in politics. I have said the same thing about other candidates for various offices at various levels.
I am not sure I see any relevance.
I think the relevance is one of an apparent double standard. You certainly don’t have to answer that. I just pose the question of why it would seem that way.
Second, the main point here is not as much about Trump but rather a discussion of how/why conservative Christianity decided to hitch their wagon to him.
Which is the point I made above.
This discussion, from my end, is about the larger issue of civic duty and responsibility. I think the issue of why conservative Christianity hitched to Trump is pretty easy: There were no other options. Again, remember most evangelicals voted against Trump.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer stood against Hitler and it cost him his life. Very brave man.
True, but Trump isn’t Hitler and the US isn’t Germany. Hitler was systematically exterminating a whole group of people. It was genocide. That isn’t politics and it isn’t personal.
[Larry]Based on what I have said and what I meant and what you have apparently inferred, I don’t think you understand. I am not sure how you would know better what I mean than I do. I don’t mean to be snide there, but if I say you are not rightly understanding me, I don’t know how you could disagree. I am not an expert on much of anything, but I have a pretty good idea of what I mean by something, even if I am not as clear as I think I am.
OK, this is getting sillier and sillier. I apologize for pointing out what I believe to be inconsistency. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, it is certainly not anything to spend much time or keystrokes on. Have a good night.
You are absolutely correct Larry. My point is that Bonhoeffer to some degree got political for a righteous cause. The Dems want Abortion on demand for any reason at any time. Their method of choice for the 2nd and 3rd trimesters is dismemberment. If babys survive the abortion, the Dems want the freedom to commit infanticide. It is the Dems policy that is close to Hitler’s extermination camps. Pastors should speak up about it often.
Pastor Mike Harding
I just wish they were a little less “fanboy” about it.
Agree.
The older I get, the more I realize humans are—in this life—doomed to excess. We so quickly slip into binary thinking, so it’s all this and zero of that or all of that and zero of this. It’s the tendency toward oversimplification. I get it. Life is so full of information and who has time to think everything through?
Part of what I hoped to help with through this article was to encourage a few more to see this “awkward alliance” (as Don called it… pretty generously!) as worthy of more careful/thorough reflection.
I can appreciate some of what Trump has gotten done and not approve at all of the alliance or of putting him in office—or pretend that his being in the role of President isn’t also having many far-reaching negative consequences for the country.
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.
“But, whether we mean it to be or not, [a vote] is always, objectively, a statement that he meets the minimum qualifications for office.”
Says who? A vote according to common usage of the term is simply “to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot.” In 2016, of the two candidates who could win, I didn’t find either particularly meeting the minimum qualifications for the office, but that didn’t stop me from expressing my choice as to which of the two I would rather be stuck with.
Discussion