Should Christians Vote for Trump?
What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president? Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president? What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them? ….
…
It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever. Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?
If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things? How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.
We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.
For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.
Why you should vote for Trump, even if you can’t stand him
Let us say Trump really is a monster. Hillary is just as bad – actually, much worse. Let us concede, then, that no matter who wins in November, the White House will be occupied by a monster. Our only hope, then, is a strong leash – a system of constraints that will limit the damage the monster can do.
With Trump, there will be a leash. The media will oppose him at every turn. So will the opposition party. Members of his own party are already standing up to him.
But with Hillary, there will be no leash. The media will not constrain her – and neither will any members of her own party. She has violated many laws, and instead of investigating and prosecuting, those who should indict her are spearheading the cover-up. If Hillary becomes president, they will turn a blind eye to her abuses, and they will cheer her on as she terrorizes the neighborhood.
We have a choice in this election. If you see little difference between the two monsters, then look at the leash. Vote for the one who will be kept on the leash. Vote for Trump.
I’ve been hesitant to weigh in on the presidential election, but shared the summary of my thoughts today here. Ultimately, we should privately vote (or not vote) in a way that increases the odds for the public candidate with the greater potential for granting Christian freedoms. It really is that simple. The hurricane of news stories and popular opinion easily obscures this core principle. So look past the emotion and flurry of trending headlines and hashtags, and ask the simple question: with the options presented to me, which course of action as a voting, U.S. citizen will be most favorable to laws and decisions being made in answer to core principle of 1 Timothy 2:2-4, because that is how you will be praying for the next four years.
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Metaxas has been reading my posts on social media this week! Seriously, I think I’ll just start quoting him. It will save me a lot of time.
Think of politics as a game of chess. Sometimes, the strategy is to stop your opponent from gaining ground. Checkmate. Your vote is a tool to slow down the forces most dangerous to a free society. When viewed this way, it should be obvious that a vote for Trump is a valuable vote against the destruction of our Constitution, which is the only thing standing in the way of governmental religious intolerance.
G. N. Barkman
Your vote is a tool to slow down the forces most dangerous to a free society.
This is exactly why I cannot vote for Donald Trump. There is no person more dangerous to a free society than a leader with no respect for the law. He cares not one whit what the law says. He is a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants arrogant fool who will work as hard as he can to do what he pleases. This is what will bring corruption to a free society.
I cannot wrap my head around this. Hillary Clinton - like her or hate her - has the experience to do the job, and to do it well. I do not say I like all of her policies or agree with her platform. But she has decorum and grace and poise and the experience to be our leader.
I can’t justify voting for this man. He represents everything I teach my children and young people not to be. I hear the followers of Christ around me finding all kinds of excuses - the court, the party, etc. None of that justifies putting a man in office that in his personal life stands diametrically opposed to everything Christ is, and flaunts it.
There is nothing in my personal life that I would trust to this man. He is not trustworthy. He has no respect for the rule of law - he has fully demonstrated both an ignorance of the law and a lack of concern for that fact. He is vulgar to an extreme, pompously arrogant, and selfish to the core.
I think this is an excellent rebuttal to the article above: blog.ayjay.org/b/4_9
…that I struggle not to pray imprecatory prayers like “let their campaign planes crash into each other” in this case. Both sleazeballs, at least one of whom belongs in jail, and the other gives strong hints he’s played the system well enough to belong there, too. My vote is going to “the one the Senate hates more”, sad to say. I’ve you’ve got to have a crook at 1600 Pennsylvania, you might as well have one who is impeachable.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It’s not about Trump. It’s not really about Clinton. It’s about what effect their respective political philosophies will have on the US Constitution. One will continue it’s erosion, the other will stop and perhaps even reverse some erosion. That will influence the future of religious freedom in America more than anything else.
G. N. Barkman
http://www.wsj.com/articles/libertarians-and-greens-can-wineven-if-they…
Should the Johnson or Stein campaigns earn 5% of the popular vote, their parties could receive public funding in 2020.
The Whig party collapse lead to the creation of the Republican party
It’s obvious the the GOP is in disarray
George Will calls the GOP mess “Chemotherapy for the GOP” :
Because Pence looks relatively presidential when standing next to Trump — talk about defining adequacy down — some Republicans want Trump to slink away, allowing Pence to float to the top of the ticket and represent Republicanism resurrected.
This idea ignores a pertinent point: Pence is standing next to Trump. He salivated for the privilege of being Trump’s poodle, and he expresses his canine devotion in rhetorical treacle about “this good man.” What would a bad man look like to pastor Pence? ….
Trump should stay atop the ticket, for four reasons.
- First, he will give the nation the pleasure of seeing him join the one cohort, of the many cohorts he disdains, that he most despises — “losers.”
- Second, by continuing to campaign in the spirit of St. Louis, he can remind the nation of the useful axiom that there is no such thing as rock bottom.
- Third, by persevering through November 8 he can simplify the GOP’s quadrennial exercise of writing its post-campaign autopsy, which this year can be published November 9 in one sentence: “Perhaps it is imprudent to nominate a venomous charlatan.”
- Fourth, Trump is the GOP’s chemotherapy, a nauseating but, if carried through to completion, perhaps a curative experience.
My take is that one cannot promote righteousness by voting for unrighteousness. I’ve stated earlier that Trump is not really a Republican!
Jim,
I would amend the note that the cartoon doesn’t “say it all.” I would judge that it “doesn’t say enough,” indeed if it “says anything at all.” I know that cartoons have their limits, and the parenthetical “for me” puts an acceptable limitation on the coverage. But I would add to the list of readings that of Dr. Mark Snoeberger at dbts.edu/blog entitled “Electing a President and Selecting a Plumber.” In a way the article carries its own humor but the content is biblical, sensible and well-reasoned (for me).
Rolland McCune
My Christian Values are NOT PROTECTED by ANY supreme court. But, the political/governmental application of values is projected through the supreme court.
So, I am not voting for Drumpf (shout out to Bert) because the court will protect my values, but so that my values can be projected through that court.
My wife and I have just moved to a new neighborhood and are trying to meet our neighbors. We have invited some to church, but more than that we would like to become friends with them. We would like to have them over for dinner and get to know their children. And we would like to find out more about what they believe about God and Jesus Christ, and whether we can help them in any way to know the Savior.
I would estimate that at least 60% of Americans hold Mr. Trump in very low esteem. He is a man with no discernable moral compass, and a man who says anything that comes to mind without thinking about how it might be perceived. He is offensive and arrogant.
I am concerned that those 60% of Americans who view Trump in this light will also be very puzzled why Christians are lining up behind him. Among those 60% are surely some of my neighbors. I want our neighbors to understand that Christians who have a deep relationship with Jesus Christ are humble and gentle, who care for others, and are polite and approachable. And herein lies the problem I have about Christians supporting Mr. Trump en masse: do we inadvertently hurt the cause for Christ by supporting a man who is so unlike us?
I believe that Mr. Trump’s character is too large a liability for Christians to support. Like it or not, there is a stereotype out there of churches whose members are gathered together to pray for Mr. Trump to be elected. Why would one of those 60% ever engage in meaningful conversation with people who have supported Mr. Trump? Why would they ever accept an invitation to church? Yes, we may be able to convince them about constitutional concerns, but would we ever be able to engage with them to advance the conversation that far?
Regardless of the benefits that Mr. Trump may deliver to Christians in terms of individual personal liberty and freedom, there is a steep price to pay for that. That price is the reputation of the body of Christ. I would rather have the gospel be the stumbling block of people coming to Christ, not the reputation of the church.
In short, I would rather have people look at my wife and I and scoff because we believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, not scoff at us and say, “they’re Christians, and they vote for Donald Trump.” I believe that evangelical support for Trump will result in much more of the latter than the former.
John B. Lee
Regarding Mark Snoeberger’s blog (linked here), while I do not always know a priori the character of my plumber (though sometimes I have—he was my next door neighbor), I certainly will pay attention if I am told that certain plumbers do not keep their promise to do good basic work at a fair price. So I don’t know that my selection of a plumber is that different from that for a politician. In both cases, honesty matters.
Now in this case, I do not have a somewhat honest major party politician to vote for. Not even close. So my choices are to (a) select the major party politician who might be impeached and removed from office on major misbehavior or (b) minor party politicians who have some semblance of honesty.
Part of that decision will have something, but not everything, to do with what John Lee mentions. There is some point where we must be willing to have unpopular views—that is what the Gospel tells us—but there is yet another point where it ought to be the Gospel, not our political BO, that offends. Regarding my neighbors, I can for the most part justify pulling the lever for “the sleazy candidate that can be removed” if that’s the choice. On the flip side, standing for a known sleazebag when that’s not the only viable option is something I should avoid.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion