Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice

There are 37 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

....is somewhat in between.  I agree that Trump has shown some dangerously narcissistic traits, and I've half wondered if he was a Clinton plant to begin with--most other GOP candidates would have beaten Clinton handily, but for Trump, it's a battle.   But that said, his nasty traits have a redeeming factor; a large number of GOP legislators simply hate his guts.  Hence, if he gets too out of line, impeachment and removal from office is likely.

Contrast that with the Democrats, where we know for a fact that perjury and obstruction of justice are not sufficient to get votes to remove from office, and arguably politicization of the FBI, DOJ, BATFE, State Department, and IRS are not, either.

Which is a long way of saying that a Trump presidency would, ironically through his narcissism, work quite a bit to re-establish the Constitutional jealousy that is the strength of our system.  Weird, but I think true.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JNoël's picture

Simply do not vote for any of the candidates. I am not saying that is my personal option, but it is an option, nonetheless.

I'm fairly certain there is no scriptural mandate for a Christian to vote.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

G. N. Barkman's picture

I see voting as a matter of stewardship.  Christian Stewardship requires that we utilize everything we have been given for the honor of Christ.  If I have been given financial resources, I must use them for Christ as a good Steward, managing them to best advantage for Him.  Likewise with talents, time, opportunities, etc.  First Century Christians did not have voting rights, hence could not use them for Christ.  We do.  They have been given to us as a stewardship.  Since God has bestowed them upon us, we are obligated to use them for His glory.

G. N. Barkman

Wayne Wilson's picture

I think Dr. Grudem is letting his conservative politics shape his evaluation of Mr. Trump. He sees virtues that simply don't exist in the man. He has "bought the con" as they say. He upholds Trump's crafted image as though it is real. "Tough as nails"?  Hardly.  He is obsessed with himself, views everything as it relates to him.  He is the textbook definition of the biblical fool. I know most of his schtick is an act, but I am not at all sure he is mentally stable. I will not vote for him.

 

 

Kevin Miller's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

I see voting as a matter of stewardship.  Christian Stewardship requires that we utilize everything we have been given for the honor of Christ.  If I have been given financial resources, I must use them for Christ as a good Steward, managing them to best advantage for Him.  Likewise with talents, time, opportunities, etc.  First Century Christians did not have voting rights, hence could not use them for Christ.  We do.  They have been given to us as a stewardship.  Since God has bestowed them upon us, we are obligated to use them for His glory.

Is running for a public office also a matter of Christian stewardship? Since we have the right to do so in this country, and that right has been given us as a stewardship, are we required to do so for God's glory?

G. N. Barkman's picture

Running for office requires talents, resources, knowledge, and experience that are not given to every Christian.  Voting requires little more than making a prayerfully informed decision and showing up at the polls, something that virtually every Christian can do.  If God gives the necessary resources, inclination, and freedom from other obligations, I think running for office could be included in the stewardship responsibilities of some Christians.

G. N. Barkman

Kevin Miller's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Running for office requires talents, resources, knowledge, and experience that are not given to every Christian.  Voting requires little more than making a prayerfully informed decision and showing up at the polls, something that virtually every Christian can do.  If God gives the necessary resources, inclination, and freedom from other obligations, I think running for office could be included in the stewardship responsibilities of some Christians.

If running for office requires "talents, resources, knowledge, and experience," then I have to look for those things in the candidate for whom I vote. If I cannot, in good conscience, support either of the main candidates, then my "prayerfully informed decision" to abstain from voting would be fulfilling my stewardship responsibilities, wouldn't it? I'll certainly be open to God giving me an "inclination" to vote, but at some point, a person's flaws become so great that he or she is not qualified to be in the office, and I don't know how I would justify to myself voting for either one of those unqualified people to be in office.

JNoël's picture

Very glad to hear you also believe that not everyone should vote. Wink

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Ed Vasicek's picture

Despite the question of Trump's character, Grudem's point about the Supreme Court being the real law makers in our country is accurate.  And, if Trump appointed people from his list, that would be a major triumph.

Anyone care to comment on that point?  I think it is the crux of the article.

 

"The Midrash Detective"

Kevin Miller's picture

Ed Vasicek wrote:

Despite the question of Trump's character, Grudem's point about the Supreme Court being the real law makers in our country is accurate.  And, if Trump appointed people from his list, that would be a major triumph.

Anyone care to comment on that point?  I think it is the crux of the article.

 

Just as we would oppose people from Hillary's list, the Democrats would oppose people from Trump's list. Trump doesn't have nearly the conservative leanings as I would hope, so I expect a few other names would get added to the list that the Dems would be more likely to support. And who knows if the people on the current list would even stay conservative?

G. N. Barkman's picture

Can you fulfill your financial stewardship responsibilities by refraining from giving?  Can you fulfill your evangelistic responsibilities by refraining from witnessing?  Or do you find effective ways to fulfill these and other stewardship responsibilities when the first and most obvious manner of fulfillment is closed?

G. N. Barkman

JNoël's picture

So let's assume you are correct, and that a wise steward will always vote. That brings us back to the question of how to vote. It is impossible to prove that a Christian must vote for Trump in order to keep Hillary out of office. Our next president is not our choice anyway, it is God's - he will ensure the correct person is put in office in accordance with his plans. So who we vote for is a moot point.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Kevin Miller's picture

G. N. Barkman wrote:

Can you fulfill your financial stewardship responsibilities by refraining from giving?  Can you fulfill your evangelistic responsibilities by refraining from witnessing? 

Can you fulfill your environmental stewardship by refraining from littering? Absolutely.

In my opinion, a vote for Trump would be a "litter" vote. Littering is when you take an object that is useful in one context, say a paper plate at a picnic, and put it somewhere it doesn't belong, say in a ditch by the side of the road. Voting for Trump is taking a useful business man (and even that is debatable), and putting him where he doesn't belong. Even if everyone else were to start littering, that doesn't mean I have to join in.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

The man is not qualified for the office of U.S. President and being nominated doesn't change that. He is not a better man for winning the nomination. The fact that he is unqualified means that it makes no difference if he seems (this week) to hold to a few positions that I also hold to. If the party's choice has any importance in the vote at all it's this: people who understand what Trump is need to communicate to the party that it's a grave mistake to scrape the bottom of the barrel, knock out the bottom of the barrel, dig down to the sewer and draw up a nominee from the muck.

I'll be casting a protest vote.

G. N. Barkman's picture

This week, a federal court struck down North Carolina's voter ID law, providing another reminder that the one who nominates the judges controls the country.  This morning, Huffington Post has an article warning that a Trump presidency might appoint four "Scalia's" to the Supreme Court, completely unthinkable to Liberals.

As onerous as voting for Trump is to a Christian, it seems to me that failing to vote for Trump is tantamount to conceding the courts, and thus the direction of the country to Liberals for decades to come.  My conscience will not allow me to do that.

G. N. Barkman

Mark_Smith's picture

For me, the only thing the election is about is the Supreme Court. Is Trump a moral man? No. Is he rude, crass, combative, etc.? Yes.

The fact is, there are only two choices for president: Trump or Hillary.

Hillary is a total disaster. She will totally transform America through the courts and through regulations. I can't even imagine the US after 8 years of Hillary... I cry about it when I see my kids. That is no exaggeration.

So, for now, I am voting AGAINST HILLARY. The only way to do that is to check the box for Trump.

P.S. I am deeply concerned about Trump, there is no doubt. He says things I can't believe a politician says. Could he reach a point that I couldn't vote for him... it is tough because Hillary is so bad.

Bert Perry's picture

...and what GN says about the courts.  The court that overturned voter ID was one Clinton appointed judge and two appointed by Obama.  They took a look at the impact studies done on the law and concluded that since the law would impact blacks more, it was unconstitutional.  

Of course, the fact that you cannot get a job, contract a loan/get credit, drive, travel or otherwise participate in our society without state issued ID doesn't seem to matter to these people.  One would wonder if all that matters is that people without ID tend to vote for Democrats, and who cares about the fact that they're living in squalor and populating our prisons--and graveyards.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JSwaim's picture

Voting for Trump because he says he will nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court is a real role of the dice, IMHO.  If Trump nominates conservatives they will not be confirmed by the Senate even if Republicans maintain control.  The Democrats will filibuster until...whenever to stop the confirmation.  Trump, the man who knows how to make a deal, will nominate someone who can get through and will care not a whit about the promises he made to conservatives.

As a Christian, a man's moral character is his primary qualification for the presidency, not his political position.  A generation ago, many Christians voted for Richard Nixon for president because his political positions were palatable.  But, he was a man of low character and his low character provoked a constitutional crises.  The nation would have been better off without him despite some good things he did.  I have voted for many politicians with whom I disagreed on some issues, but, to my knowledge at the time, I have never voted for a person of low character.  As a Christian, I don't think I can.

Mark_Smith's picture

There IS NO ROLE OF THE DICE WITH HILLARY. If she wins, the SCOTUS will beyond a shadow of a doubt go so liberal you won't know what hit you. You can kiss 501c3 status goodbye. You will likely start paying property tax on your church faciltiies. Everyone but clergy actually performing clerical duties will have to submit to same-sex marriage and LGBTQ dogma. The second amendment rights will be tempered. The Dept of Education will continue sliding down as it has... I could go on and on.

If Hillary wins I predict within her term preacher's will begin being jailed for preaching Romans 1.

In fact, if Hillary goes that far, and maybe even wins a 2nd term, there is a distinct possibility people will start thinking rebellion...

I think this election is that serious. It is a full on game changer that we won't come back from. That is why it is so tragic Trump won the primary. Perhaps the battle for America is already lost...

Bert Perry's picture

Per what Mark said, with Drumpf it's a roll of the dice.  With Hilliary, you're praying for a miracle that her vetting didn't work out.

It's a really ugly election where there are no easy choices, that's for sure.  But we can expect Hilliary to do the wrong thing; we have at least a tenth of a chance that Drumpf will do the right thing.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JNoël's picture

God told us we would be persecuted. None of what you said is grounds for voting for someone like Trump. Perhaps persecution is what American Christians need.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Bert Perry's picture

JNoël wrote:

God told us we would be persecuted. None of what you said is grounds for voting for someone like Trump. Perhaps persecution is what American Christians need.

.....our need for discipline, even including outright chastisement or persecution, doesn't mean we need to deliberately choose Nero over Augustus, no?  :^)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Wouldn't it be interesting if Trump's first nomination for the Supreme Court, in spite of his promised list, is Judge Merrick Garland? That way he would have a "win" immediately first thing in his presidency, since all the Democrats would approve and Republicans would just keep following along with Trump no matter what he says or does.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I wish I could say that would surprise me. I'm not going to call it "likely," but how can anything such a man does be truly surprising? Well, I guess settling down into a consistent pattern of grown up behavior would surprising... but other than that.

Mark_Smith's picture

But there is no way he could nominate liberals to the court. If he did, there would be a wave a protestors climbing over the White House fence. He is running on nominating conservative judges for goodness sake.

 

As for persecution, while we will have it if we live godly, that does not mean we ask for it by not voting. WAKE UP!!!!

pvawter's picture

He could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still be elected. There is no low to which he could stoop, where his followers would reject him. He has already dared them to do so, and they have not. It is, imo, contrary to biblical wisdom to believe that Trump will nominate anyone from his list. After all, does not Proverbs warn against trusting in a fool?

Ron Bean's picture

I predict that the next president of the United States will be a dishonest and untrustworthy individual.

In response I've decided that my reaction will be that of the Old Testament prophet when he heard that his beloved country was headed for hard times: 

"Though the cherry trees don’t blossom
and the strawberries don’t ripen,
Though the apples are worm-eaten
and the wheat fields stunted,
Though the sheep pens are sheepless
and the cattle barns empty,
I’m singing joyful praise to God.
I’m turning cartwheels of joy to my Savior God.
Counting on God’s Rule to prevail,
I take heart and gain strength.
I run like a deer.
I feel like I’m king of the mountain!"

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Pages