How, Then, Should Christians Vote? And do Evangelicals owe Bill Clinton an apology?

David’s view is essentially my own, and he definitely says parts of it better I’ve been able to, so far. I’m not ready to say we were wrong in the 90s. And if we were right then, that demands the same analysis in 2020 (as it should have in 2016). Some of my favorite bits… with emphasis added…

In each race, I impose a two-part test on candidates. First, they must possess a personal character that is worthy of the office they seek. Second, they must broadly share my political values. If a candidate fails either prong of that test, he or she doesn’t receive my vote.

There was a time…when virtually every Christian conservative I know would nod along in ready agreement with both parts of that test. In fact, they were distressed—even anguished—that a critical mass of their fellow citizens didn’t seem to agree. So long as the economy boomed, they were blind or indifferent to the way in which profound failures of character not only degraded the nation’s culture, it damaged the nation’s social cohesion.

Given conservative Evangelicals’ stunning reversal on the importance of character in politicians, do they now owe Bill Clinton a heartfelt apology? But I think the Christian statements of the 1990s were exactly right. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said that his people were “the salt of the earth.” When I read that verse, I can still hear my youth pastor saying, “Salt preserves, y’all.”

I’m reminded of these famous words from John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In other words, virtue is indispensable to the proper functioning of the American nation, and without that virtue, America could become, in Adams’s words, “the most miserable habitation in the world.”

One does not cure cultural moral cancer with more cancer.

If the world’s wealthiest and and most powerful collection of Christians are supine before their political masters in the United States, marching to the beat of secular drummers (even if allegedly “holding their noses” all the while) then I fear the message that sends is that we do not have faith that God’s providence governs the nations.

A defensive argument in response to one of the top two defenses of voting for an “electable, conservative” candidate of very poor character:

Theological truth can also create a pragmatic reality. Over time, perhaps the best method of cleansing our political class of the low, narcissistic characters who all too often occupy public office is to stop voting for them.

Another defensive argument in response to the send of the top two defenses…

It’s no answer to respond by declaring, as so many Christians do, “Well, nobody’s perfect.” While we all may be equally in need of a savior, our characters are not all the same…. We know nobody’s perfect. But some men are decent. Some men are truthful. Some men are brave. Some men are none of those things.

Back to the ethical implications…

Assuming Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, I can’t vote for him. Even if I do like some of the things he’s done, he lacks the character to be president.

I don’t see how it glorifies God to use the power of my vote or my voice to help make Donald Trump the world’s most powerful man.

At the very least, it’s another reminder that anti-Trump conservatives do exist, and that their rationale for not being Trump backers isn’t some sort of newly-developed betrayal of the GOP or some kind of fake conservatism. It’s consistency with what the conservative movement used to have at its core, back when it had principles. But whether the “movement” has principles anymore or not, conservatism itself still does.

This article perfectly crystallizes my own views:

“Whatever you do,” Paul says, “do all to the glory of God.” I don’t see how it glorifies God to use the power of my vote or my voice to help make Donald Trump the world’s most powerful man.

Obviously we live in a world more and more affected by sin, which also affects the character of the people presenting themselves for political office. You can argue theology, politics, and principles forever. If your conscience will not allow you to vote for someone, then don’t vote for that person. Although a person may feel good about himself for voting or not voting based on principle, remember that someone will become President no matter what you do. NONE of those currently running for President have the personal character to become President. Yet one of them will be President. Trump has accomplished several good results. What would a President from a different political party have done? Are we so opposed to Trump that we would accept a homosexual President, a socialist President, or a President who would reverse many of the good policies of the current administration? I reluctantly voted for Trump in 2016 and will do so again this November. The alternatives are worse. This isn’t abandoning conservative political principles. It’s working with what you have.

The alternatives are worse.

I’ve proven over and over that not all actions can be justified by a “the alternatives are worse” rationale.

But in the article itself, French deals with that objection… though in a muted way.

Theological truth can also create a pragmatic reality. Over time, perhaps the best method of cleansing our political class of the low, narcissistic characters who all too often occupy public office is to stop voting for them.

So a question I have for you, Wally, and for the many who look at the situation that way, is this: How do you know this approach isn’t just enabling the ongoing problem of “no candidate of suitable character to vote for”?

But this pretty much says it all…

NONE of those currently running for President have the personal character to become President.

If you believe that, it’s clear that the right thing to do is not vote for any of them.

I’ve been reading Augustine’s City of God. There are shocking parallels about moral degeneracy in the latter stages of the Roman Empire to the West today. One of Augustine’s main critiques is that this moral degeneracy destroyed the Empire. He advocated Christ as an alternative for the people. In our times, I cannot help but suspect that voting for Donald Trump will only hasten the moral chaos and filth that is our society. The fact that a Democrat may be worse is meaningless to me.

He will not inspire our young people to moral virtue. He does not stand for righteousness or justice. He is not a good example of manhood, leadership or responsibility. In short, he is not a good man. I will not vote for him.

If a pro-life Democrat isn’t on the ticket, I likely won’t vote at all. Regardless, WA is going blue in the electoral college so it matters little!

My voting for a particular candidate or not voting for a particular candidate doesn’t enable him as far as his character. He will be that way regardless of what I do. Not voting will not solve that problem at all. It will only satisfy personal conscience. The “lesser of two evils” argument is a vald argument in a sin-cursed world. The candidates for President are not all equal in morality or immorality, good or bad qualities. Differences DO exist among the candidates. I fail to see the moral rightness of how not voting for a poor Republican candidate is better morally than allowing a worse Democratic candidate to become President. None of the current candidates should be President. Yet ONE of them WILL be President. That is a FACT. Politics is not black and white because sin has muddied and complicated everything. The best method for “cleansing the political class” is the gospel. No, Aaron, it is not “clear that the right thing to do is not vote for any of them” because one of them WILL become President, whether you vote or not. If your conscience won’t allow you to vote for anyone, then don’t. But when a homosexual or socialist becomes President because Christians couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a poor Republican candidate, don’t complain about what the new President does. Tyler’s reference to the City of God is helpful. But if “voting for Donald Trump will only hasten the moral chaos and filth that is our society”, then wouldn’t a homosexual President “hasten the moral chaos” even more? Or perhaps a socialist President who enables the “getting everything free” attitude, which is also a moral issue.

As those who follow Christ as Lord and King, we certainly reject the political and moral chaos/character of our time. We have to live in this world yet not love it nor be friends with it. Nevertheless, as citizens of a representative democracy which uses voting to choose leaders, we have to make SOME choice in November. The current choices are not ideal. Yet someone will be President regardless of what you do. Would I like to see someone like Pence as President. Sure. But I prefer to have Trump as President than a homosexual or a socialist. And I can live with that very well.

that only a man like Donald Trump is able to withstand the unbelievable assaults against him, and fight back effectively? I’ve never seen anyone do it before in my lifetime, and that includes Ronald Reagan, who was certainly first class all around. He rose above the fray with his charming wit and smooth communication. He was very popular, but did nothing to expose the underbelly of the unprincipled left. He allowed the left to remain intact and more deeply entrenched in all levels of government. Trump is the first president to fight the left on its own playing field. It’s not a pretty sight. It’s nasty warfare. Frankly, I wouldn’t have the stomach for it, nor does anyone who is gracious and principled. Trump’s a back ally gang fighter. I think that’s the only kind of person who stands a chance of exposing the deep seated corruption and actually draining the swamp. I’m actually beginning to admire him for his incredible resilience and indefatigable fortitude. He’s probably the only person who might, just might, succeed in seriously damaging the left.

G.N. Barkman has an excellent point, one which I have mentioned to several people when we have discussed this topic. Some of President Trump’s negative qualities, as unsightly as they are, strangely give him the fortitude to confront certain evils. Washington politics is nasty, dirty, and certainly not Christian. Easy for us to talk about moral principle when we are not the ones directly fighting certain evils in Washington. I am in no way excusing sin or personal moral failure. But strange how President Trump has confronted the political and media left when Presidents who were supposedly more moral did not. If President Trump is not the choice for some Christians, then WHO realistically would you rather have to be President? Sadly, we do not have any other choices at this time. So we reluctantly accept who we have because the alternatives are much worse. Talk about moral principles all you want. The practical realities require a choice.

Wally wrote:

The practical realities require a choice.

Agreed. My choice is to not vote for a man like Donald Trump.

Yes, Tyler’s decision to not vote for Trump is obviously a choice someone can make. Once a person decides not to vote for Trump, he then has to decide whether to vote for someone else or not vote at all. The “someone else” options are worse or, realistically as far as third party candidates, will not come close to getting elected. At best, third party candidates pull votes away from the Democrat or Republican candidates. In recent history, the electoral votes in Washington state have voted for the Democrat. Even so, I would suggest that individual votes DO matter even in those states which we are pretty sure will go Democrat since in 2016 Trump lost the popular vote, and some people continue to use that fact to claim his Presidency is illegitimate.

Many of them may well pass the character test, but I cannot vote for a person who would put in place policies I believe are harmful and potentially destructive—especially to unborn life.

Perhaps this says all that needs to be said about the judgment of David French. A person who can say that there are Democratic candidates that “may well pass the character test” is a person who has disqualified himself or herself from any public voice.

Here’s the things that people like French and Aaron, for all their talking, still don’t get: We will be governed by a person of bad character. Which kind of bad character do you want? One with better policies or worse policies?

It is hard to imagine any reasonable person preferring bad character and bad policies to bad character and better policies. Such abdication of moral responsibility is staggering. And make no mistake about it: It is an abdication of moral responsibility. Multiplying words with philosophical sounding arguments will not change that. The emperor will still have no clothes .

Thank you Larry, Wally, and Brother Barkman.

Romans 13 and 1 Timothy 2 teach us about what God’s priorities are for governmental authorities. None of the Democrat candidates will govern in keeping with either passage. President Trump, by strong contrast, has enacted policies in keeping with the rule of law and conducive to or at least not opposed to Christian worship and Christians living out their lives in the fear of God.
Concerning his character, perhaps considering the situation in the time of Samson is relevant. Should righteous Israelites have refused Samson’s leadership because he displayed serious moral deficits while he was exercising the office of being a judge over Israel?
It’s important also to consider that unlike Samson, President Trump has not engaged in any immoral behavior of a sexual nature during his time in office.

Reading some of the pro-Trump comments here, I feel as though I inhabit another moral universe than some of my brothers and sisters. I suspect some pro-Trump Christians feel the same after reading my own remarks. Here’s my summary of all the pro-Trump arguments I’ve seen:

Yeah, Trump’s a bully and a thug, but at least he’s OUR thug!

[TylerR]

Reading some of the pro-Trump comments here, I feel as though I inhabit another moral universe than some of my brothers and sisters. I suspect some pro-Trump Christians feel the same after reading my own remarks. Here’s my summary of all the pro-Trump arguments I’ve seen:

Yeah, Trump’s a bully and a thug, but at least he’s OUR thug!