Evangelical spokesmen still broadly condemning anyone thinking of voting for Donald Trump as POTUS

In no political election of which I've either participated or followed since I began voting in the mid-seventies do I recall such publicly negative emotion being spewed toward Christian believers. Let me qualify that a bit, for I've certainly observed and, at times, personally experienced, the fiery wrath from those both to the political left of me and unbelievers outside the church. There was a time when those who did not know me would conceivably assume "fascist bigot" was my middle name since it was spoken so often about my more conservative political leanings.

What's different about the present presidential election is, I (and others who've chosen privately or publicly to vote Trump in less than a month) am routinely slammed not just by the political left…not just by unbelievers outside the church…Rather, I am systematically slammed by those not only inside the church, but also by heretofore professed fellow conservatives inside the church.

What is more, while I can fully understand, and perhaps in some ways accept, "fascist bigot" by radical leftists and unbelievers—after all, we can't expect them to either be tolerant in the best sense of that word, or just since they understandably possess no clear sense of Judeo-Christian justice, or righteous since their worldview ethic remains intellectually jaded and morally insufficient –I must admit I am puzzled, and in some significant ways, personally offended by the ceaseless condemnation heaped upon me (and those like me) by fellow conservative Christians. It is here that I find no comparison in earlier elections in which I've either participated or followed.

Here's just two examples from my feed-reader today (many others could be cited):

Denny Burk: "Why More Evangelicals may need to follow CT's lead." Burk praises Christianity Today's "scathing editorial" wherein Andy Crouch 'makes the case that "Evangelicals, of all people, should not be silent about Donald Trump's blatant immorality."' For the record, I know of no evangelical leader who has remained silent about Trump's character flaws but could list several who've weighed those flaws in the balance of reason and expediency and found them insufficient grounds to turn the country over to Hillary Rodham Clinton. Burk goes on to suggest:

"Many people are assuming that evangelicals in toto are supporting Donald Trump, that evangelicals are willing to turn a blind eye to disqualifying character defects, and that they are willing to endorse reprehensible character so long as the candidate is Republican and not Democrat. In short, it appears that evangelicals have no principle only partisan interest."

But Burk offers no evidence that "people are assuming" evangelicals in toto support Trump. In fact, Burk's point reduces to argument without evidence. Consider. While it may be true most evangelicals in more recent polls appear to support Trump, their support for Trump is almost identical to their support for Mitt Romney in 2012. Hence, there's no real point to be made. What is also telling in the poll is that Burk et al place themselves in the 77% category of the "religiously unaffiliated"--the atheists, the agnostics, the nones--against Donald Trump. Talk about being out of touch with the American people! Perhaps this may explain in part why neo-evangelicals cannot get an electable candidate on a ballot—they can't find one who identifies with average folks.

Burk goes on to suggest evangelicals for Trump "appear to have no principle only partisan interest." In other words, the Trump voter has sold his or her soul to the Republican party and therefore no amount of principled behavior will upset that sheer, naked politicism. For me, this becomes the most awful kind of broad-brush criticism and remains abrasive and offensive to the core. It also demonstrates a completely-out-of-touch position with where grassroots evangelicals presently are, a sort of elitist, ivory-tower rhetoric which speaks to the proverbial choir (i.e. Burk's close-knit circle of friends). These words do not ring of those attributable to a Prophet as we're many times told. Instead they sound like the words of an egotistical bully who--intentionally or unintentionally--assumes others who do not believe like them are ungodly, worldly, and even unchristian.

Jared Wilson: "Shall We Endorse Evil That Good May Come?" Wilson curiously (and irresponsibly) exploits a rhetorical question found in Romans 3:8b: 'And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), "Let us do evil that good may come"? Their condemnation is just.' In context, Paul was reciting what his critics were accusing him of teaching; namely, fostering sin that grace may abound more and more (cp. 5:20; 6:1). Or, as NT scholar, C. K. Barrett says, "Why not increase God's goodness by contributing as generously as possible to the stock of human sin?" Hence, Wilson turns the Apostle's point on its head!

No, Trump voters are not suggesting either a) doing evil that good may come; or b) allowing the ends to justify the means; or c) "compromise what we know is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and worthy of praise if we think the result may be something good." As Paul briefly responded to his vitriolic know-it-all critics, "Their condemnation is just" (3:8c). Wilson's biblical butchery aside, he tacitly assumes apart from either argument or evidence that voting for a less-than-suitable candidate in a free election democracy constitutes, perhaps in the worst kind of way, an evil act in itself. Once again, we have provocative rhetoric but no genuine content. And the biblical content that's there is horribly manipulated in a way undeniably forced upon the text by skewed quotation.

As I've argued elsewhere, if voting for a candidate for any public office requires full approval and support for all of his or her policy positions and all his or her personal morals, then the case is surely lost for Christian involvement in the public square when it comes to free elections. One fundamental reason this is so stems from the undeniable fact that citizens may only vote for whom the democratized election prelates allow. We don't get to rig the choices the electoral process pitches to us.

Thus, we cannot expect candidates with either our personal convictions, personal values, or public policies to always match up with our ideals. To be sure, no presidential primary in the past has sent to the public a more striking example of twin candidates both of whom possess so few qualities along with an overabundance of vices than the 2016 presidential primaries. Make no mistake, however: one of the candidates--either Trump or Clinton--will be sworn in as POTUS come January, 2017. And, given the moral cultural meltdown of "Christian" America—a meltdown paralleling the loss of the so-called "Bible-belt" which is so strangely celebrated by the very critics who are complaining about Trump's morals—we should not be surprised if more and more "repulsive" candidates are sent to evangelical voters to consider. I'm afraid even evangelicals can't have their cake and eat it too.

If I am correct, the only option left to evangelicals like Russell Moore, Al Mohler, Denny Burk, and Jared Wilson to name a few, is to either sit the election process out all the while heckling other Christians for allegedly engaging the political process in an ungodly way (what they are doing presently), or sit quietly on the sidelines of our culture and watch the political parade march by without them (what many of them are suggesting we do in November by not voting).

For me, neither option makes much moral nor civic sense.

For at least a year or so, evangelicals who happen to believe voting for Trump is a greater good than either actively voting for Clinton or passively allowing Clinton to gain the White House (via a 3^rd party candidate or a write-in candidate) have been routinely dissed and morally butchered, all the way from accusations of being naïve and dopey, to being idolaters and godless, to selling their spiritual souls for a bowl of political pottage, to giving up everything they've ever believed.

Please know those kinds of offensive attacks will not be easily forgotten. 

The way I see it, the 2016 presidential election has ensured American evangelicalism will never be the same. Perhaps that's a good thing. Only time will tell.

Comments

[eric]

Thanks for the post Peter,

I'd like to ask a related question.In a broad sense, the conservative wing of Politics has by and large promoted a platform that is amiable to Christians. I'd say that also applies to the folks running under that platform. That is, in general, the folks running under the conservative banner were held to a higher moral standard.

I think its fair to say that Trump has turned that desired "moral standard" on its head. As you have clearly expressed in your two post, you do not approve of trumps character flaws.Nor do other Christians.

I'm wondering when this all plays out and things calm down. Will the "Christian wing" of the conservative party loose any credibility when being critical of future candidates who have very public disgraceful character issues.

For instance, if I vote for Trump, who has so many moral failures, can I be critical of a future candidate who also has many moral failures. That is, tell folks they shouldn't vote for such a scoundrel when I voted for Trump without being a hypocrite?

[peter lumpkins]

Eric,

Thanks for your question, and a very good question at that.

In my view and as you indicate, the conservative political platform has historically been amenable to conservative Christian values as I interpret them. Hence, in a real sense while I've voted almost exclusively Republican over the last several years, it's been more coincidental rather than because I'm hopelessly wed to Republicanism per se, and certainly not to my remaining loyal to any one Republican candidate.

With that said, I don't think it's been the case that conservative leaders have been held to a higher moral standard, at least not by me personally or purposely. Many, many Republican candidates have been found out to be just as morally sleazy as some Democrats. Moreover, evangelicals have allowed their share of morally questionable personalities to run and win far apart from the fireworks show we've experienced over Donald Trump.

Moreover, I don't think it's either correct or even the right focus to continually cite moral flaws in candidates as the ultimate criteria by which we judge a public servant as worthy or unworthy to hold office. Critics continually claim if we "ignore" Trump's moral flaws, then we owe Bill Clinton an apology, which by the way, brings up your question concerning hypocrisy, and suggests, at least for now, it's not culture who's screaming hypocrisy, it's evangelicals! Thus, I'm unconvinced culture is bound bring up the H factor. If they do, then it could be easily shown how they are the real hypocrites by pretending to be morally concerned about the personal sexual lives of anyone much less politicians--unless, of course, it were profitable for them.

So no, I don't see H being a real issue with culture. I do see H being an issue with closet moral and theological legalists who insist all evangelicals follow their lead or else. That's precisely what we're experiencing presently.

Finally, I have a fairly passive approach to political involvement and the way Christians should carry out their civic duties. Frankly, I don't think I ought to be telling Christians how they ought to vote. Verbally assaulting others who freely go to the polls in a republican democracy is Christian in what way exactly? Present evangelical Trump critics have never once tried to explain their self-assigned designation as poll police in the open elections. Look at some of the mid-eastern cultures where it's actually a life/death act to publicly show up at the polling booths. They may be literally shot and killed. That's extreme intimidation at work. That the chances of that happening here in the USA are not remotely probable (now) should not suggest the intimidation-factor is absent. To the contrary, what does it mean to tell a believer he or she is giving up everything they have believed as a Christian if they vote for candidate A and not candidate B, C, or perhaps D? While that can't be called violent intimidation, it surely can be called vicious intimidation, and therefore has no place in a genuine republican democracy.

Personally, I think we ought to

a) focus on the most significant issues at hand;
b) look into both the personal character and public positions of the candidates;
c) weigh the results in a balance reasonably geared toward a civil, republican democracy founded upon COTUS, keeping close in mind we're not voting on the Kingdom of God;
d) make the best decision one can;
e) publicize it if you want; don't if you don't want;
f) vote in every election you can

After this year, I may add another:

don't tell the evangelical in your right hand what the evangelical in your left hand is doing...

[eric]

Thanks Peter,
Good food for thought.

[Scott Shaver]

If Burk, Wilson and Moore don't have the courage to live, decide and comport themselves as Christians in the REAL world they need to shut up about the rest of us.

These aren't leaders....they're egocentric school boys.

[Max]

Peter, your response to Eric should be printed and inserted in church bulletins this Sunday at all 45,000+ SBC churches! Finally, a Southern Baptist steps forward with both common sense and spiritual insight to provide the perspective we need! Good words and worthy of consideration by all Christians going into this year's election, in my humble but accurate opinion.

P.S. I was young and now am old and I ain't seen nothin' like this! We have a leadership crisis in the White House and the Church House. We are in need of widespread repentance and revival, but I don't see much motion in that direction.

[peter lumpkins]

Max

You are much too kind brother. I only wish we could go back to bulletin inserts having a fair representation of where candidates stand with the Pastor encouraging the flock to become informed, and, after prayerful deliberation, determine to vote with integrity for the candidate that most represents and seems most pragmatically suitable to a free republican democracy founded upon the COTUS.

Sadly, I'm afraid that day will remain a wish in my ever-aging head till either I die or Jesus returns.

Lord bless...

[JND]

I will vote Libertarian because that's the choice that's right for me. I am most grateful that I don't get condemned for that choice here. It ought to be that way everywhere.

Good post. Good reply. Best wishes in the days ahead.

[Scott Shaver]

Why condemn anybody's exercise of the right to vote any way they choose as we will all collectively have to bear up under what goes into office.

However, strong words of condemnation here for self-righteous preachers, pundits, seminary professors and Southern Baptist lobbyists to DC for their whining and crying over a man they have no intention of voting for while branding the rest of us as traitors to the cause of Christ for exercising our right to do so.

May their ivory towers be the first to crumble under the new regime.

[Max]

Scott wrote "May their ivory towers be the first to crumble under the new regime."

On a related note: "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty" https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.53dcf35cd1f2

[Lydia]

".....deliberation, determine to vote with integrity for the candidate that most represents and seems most pragmatically suitable to a free republican democracy founded upon the COTUS."

Growing up my mom and dad encouraged a lot of debate on issues but when it came to how they voted they were adamant it was a private decision and a rude question to ask people. But the real issue was understanding founding principals and being informed as to how the process was designed to work. When we understand that, we know that, barring a major crisis, gridlock is very good. Passing laws should be a grueling sausage making debates that cover every angle of potential long term ramifications. When it comes to our government process is very important. It should outrage us that 9 unelected judges legislate for us.p because congress is too cowardly to debate. But that is now the new normal.

I was encouraged to lean more about these things at home than at school or college. I honestly think people would seek more independence from an "encroaching on life choices nanny government" if they understood the long term ramifications. It is probably a bit late in the game for that.

The only way this works is for the electorate to be ignorant and lazy.