Some Different Post-Election Reflections

My first draft of this rejoinder mysteriously disappeared. Given our times, I should say the Woke Left did it, and if Trump had been put in office sooner, I’d still have my file.

No, let’s just go with, “the dog ate my homework.” So I am cranking out a new post. Apologies for the length. I won’t have time to edit it down.

My thoughts here are only partly in response to Pastor Barkman’s article yesterday. These are essentially the same things I’ve been saying since 2016. But sometimes it can be helpful to say the same thing in a little bit different way, as all pastors and teachers (and probably all parents) know.

I mainly want to address three topics where the thinking that apparently still holds sway with a lot of conservative Christians seems faulty to me:

• Character vs. policy
• The voting calculation
• Cultural mitigation and transformation

Agreed

First, I want to note a few points of agreement with Greg and most conservative Christians I know.

Some no doubt voted against progressivism rather than for Donald Trump, but in spite of an inordinately high disapproval rating, Mr. Trump persuaded millions of voters to abandon their previous party and support him.

Indeed they did, and to some extent he did.

I am under no delusion that all the decisions by President Trump will be principled or wise…. May [God] now be pleased to do what is more needed by bringing true revival to our nation. Until that occurs, we will see public policy swing back and forth from left to right and back again…

Also agreed.

Brethren, let us renew our own commitment to the Word of God, and let us pray that God will spiritually revive thousands of churches and millions of people all across America.

Amen!

Character vs. Policy

Since 2016, I’ve heard and read many variations of “the person vs. the politician” or “character vs. policy.” I’m not sure Greg’s “person … politician” distinction was meant to be a character vs. policy distinction, but many do see it that way. The politician is the policy maker. The person is the “ungodly man” we can put up with as long as he makes better policy.

This continues to be a significant point of disagreement for me. Does Scripture encourage us to think that leaders’ character can be separated from their “policy”?

We have to define “policy.” In our system, policy is everything from the President’s orders and instructions, to the legislation he is able to persuade others to develop and pass, to the people he appoints to the courts and various units of the executive branch.

It’s a lot.

To rephrase the question, then, does Scripture encourage us to believe that a leader’s decisions and influence are likely to have no relationship to his character? We would probably all say no to that. But we seem to be willing to underestimate the degree to which policy is inevitably shaped by character.

• The mouth speaks “out of the heart” (Luke 6:45)
• The heart inexorably flows into life (Prov 4:23)
• True character comes out in “fruit” (Matt 7:15-20).
• Saul was a worse leader than David because he was a lesser man (1 Sam 15:28).
• Fools and scoffers will act like fools and scoffers (Prov 1:22, 3:35, 15:12, 21:24).
• Even ‘secular’ rulers are judged for poor character (Dan 5:18-23).
• Ungodly people will make ungodly choices (Psalm 1:1, 4-5)
• A ruler who is “wicked” or “lacks understanding” will oppress those with less power (Prov 28:15-16)

I could dig up more, I’m pretty sure. Scripture encourages us to believe that people of poor character who gain power will generally abuse that power to serve their own pride and gain.

I anticipate an objection. What about unbelievers in Scripture who spoke truth and did good things? Blessedly, this does happen—a lot! It’s proof that common grace is a real thing! So even wicked leaders can do some good, and usually do, somewhere along the way.

I’m not saying a man of poor character will only make bad decisions—enact only bad policy. I’m saying—Scripture is saying—that bad character cannot be isolated from decision-making. When a person of bad character becomes a leader, there will be negative consequences, along with whatever good he may do.

In Scripture, the bad usually outweighs the good in these cases—which is why Jesus can be so concise on the topic in Matthew 7:15ff. That’s really always how these things turn out, one way or another.

This is a factor that needs to be included in our decisions about voting.

The Vote Calculation

I understand the thought process that says, “I can see what will happen if the worst leader wins, so I’ll vote for the ‘least worst’ leader.” I get it. I appreciate elegant solutions, and if a simple process will do, I’m all for rejecting more complex ones.

But for Christians, even choices that are “not complicated” have ethical considerations. Sometimes the elegant solution is excluded.

Christians, like other citizens, weighed the only realistic choices available and voted for the one they believed most aligned with their values. It’s not that complicated. Far from being mindless lemmings governed by fickle emotions, most Christians evaluated their options and made an intelligent choice.

I’m not sure it was really all that rational for a lot of voters, but let’s say it was. There are still some reasons it should not be that simple for Christians.

For Christians, is “realistic” really a standard for determining right and wrong? Are “realistic choices” ever the only choices? Was it realistic for Abraham to put Isaac on an altar? Was it realistic for Gideon to take on the Midianites with 300 men? How realistic was it to put Saul of Tarsus in charge of a missions campaign?

I’m a practical guy, so I fully embrace the “other things being equal, do what works” approach.

The problem is with the “other things being equal” clause.

For Christians, though outcomes are included, they are never all there is to consider when discerning what options are better or worse.

Decision	Outcome
Moses leads Israelites out of Egypt	Israelites trapped between an army and the sea
Elijah publicly humiliates the prophets of Baal	Death sentence
Daniel keeps openly praying	Death sentence
Jonah (eventually) preaches to Nineveh	Enemy spared from God’s judgment
Paul openly preaches in hostile territory	Jailed: can’t plant more churches

You might think, “Yeah, but God did good things through all those situations.” That’s exactly my point, though. Our failures are often part of God’s successes.

Consider the cross—the ultimate victory through defeat.

Sometimes losing is really winning, and sometimes winning is really losing.

To sum up, it’s not really all that complicated to say that, for Christians, simplicity and effectiveness are not the primary factors for evaluating the ethics of our choices.

Culture Change

This could be another thousand words, but I need to wrap this up.

God determined to install an ungodly man who embraces a number of conservative policies. In doing so, He slowed the momentum for unrestricted abortions, in-your-face transgenderism, public flaunting of the rule of law, and a host of other ills that are destroying America.

It is not obvious to me that there will be any real gains in these areas over the next four years, or even that decline will be slowed. Policy can influence culture, but mostly it works the other way. The beliefs, values, and attitudes of the society ultimately determine its policies—at least in a free society.

So we have to factor cultural impact into our voting choices.

When a person of bad character is chosen to represent a brand, the brand often suffers. In our case, the “brand” is traditional—and in many ways, Christian—values and principles. A brand spokesman who contradicts most of them isn’t going to help sell product. The buyer has every right to be all the more suspicious that the product is bogus.

Fortunately, every true Christian is a brand spokesman (Phil 2:15, Matt 5:16). That mitigates. Still, a law-disdaining, conspiracy-theory-loving, self-aggrandizing, slanderous (and so much more) man who openly identifies with evangelicals, and who has many passionate and vocal evangelical fans, can do a lot of cultural damage to all the principles we hold dear.

I’m not saying the cultural bottom line will certainly be no better than it would have been under Harris, or that it will certainly be worse than it would have been under Harris. I can’t see the future. I’m saying both of those outcomes are entirely possible, when all is said and done—and that, as a result, policy would get worse as well.

This is why, to many of us, it was not obvious that voting for a bad man in order to get better policy was the best way to vote.

Well, it’s history now. But we will probably face similar choices again down the road.

The great comfort in all of this is a point of agreement: God is still working all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11). The Psalm is still 100% true.

This God—his way is perfect; the word of the Lord proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. (Ps 18:30)