#FaithTrumpsFear or #StopSinningbyVotingTrump?

Paul Hastings (source)

A video entitled "FaithTrumpsFear" seems to be making its rounds on social media. It's appeared with glowing recommendations on The Resurgent, RedState, Caffeinated Thoughts, and even captures the personal view of the Southern Baptist Convention's Pastors' Conference president, Dave Miller: "Is it time we started viewing things differently? For me, it is. this video encapsulates my view."¹

Produced by a small video production company in Austin, Texas run by CEO, Paul Hastings (who is featured in the video), the reason indicated making it was because that by voting for Donald Trump, evangelicals are allegedly suggesting "that values no longer mattered. It was incredibly disheartening to hear many of my Christian friends begin repeating what these leaders were saying. That we needed to support Trump because he was the only hope we have to stop Hillary."

Check out Hastings' video.

Responding to #FaithTrumpsFear

Of course, as we've noted several times here and on Facebook, evangelicals voting for Trump have not remotely suggested that "values no longer mattered." In fact, Christian values remain at the heart of evangelicals who are voting Trump, values like concern for the unborn; a free church in a free state; immigration reform; affordable but functional healthcare for all people; a strong military; a supported military; protected borders; among many, many others. To suggest Trump voters tossed Christian values aside to vote Trump is both false and roundly absurd.

Nor do evangelicals affirm Trump as the only hope to stop Hillary Clinton. God is God, and being an All-powerful God He is able to stop Clinton or Trump from being POTUS in any way consistent with His holy character He desires. It does stand to reason that Trump is the only political hope in stopping Clinton from taking the White House. We'd invite Hastings or any other to argue differently. What's more, apparently Hastings isn't aware that he's advocating the only way to stop Clinton or Trump from being POTUS is to vote for somebody else. But if evangelicals deserve criticism in voting for Trump to stop Clinton, why does voting for a third candidate to stop Trump and Clinton not also deserve the same criticism? Where's Hastings' faith in God instead of a third candidate?      

My major reservations about Hastings' video do not concern his plea to vote his conscience. Most every evangelical voting for Trump whom I know or have read has not a scintilla of reluctance in offering the same courtesy to non-Trump voters as they themselves expect. Apart from perhaps a few examples on the peripheral, there's simply no debate here. And anyone suggesting otherwise needs to produce the goods or stop insisting something that's entirely false. Namely, that Trump voters are pushing non-Trump voters to vote against their conscience.

So, what's wrong with Hastings' view as he presented it in the video?

Below are some highlights (embolden) in Hastings' video and my response following:

Is it possible as Christians that God has a higher calling on our lives than voting for either of two candidates who are so completely hostile to His commands? [...] We are not called to choose the lesser of two evils, we are called to holiness. In response, while Hastings rightly suggests believers are "called to holiness," he wrongly implies that a) voting and/or voting incorrectly is an unholy act; b) voting for a candidate who does not meet our moral expectations is an unholy act; c) that the "lesser of two evils" view contains no moral force whatsoever; d) that the "higher calling of God" demands we vote neither Trump nor Clinton. Not a single one of Hastings' assumptions remains inarguable.²

God desires the trust of His people more than their strategies. Agreed. But if voting for Donald Trump necessarily implies distrust in God, then voting for any candidate for any public office holding any view necessarily implies distrust in God. Even if we vote for a candidate that matches our views of America and the Christian faith in every way possible, it could always be suggested that the voter is attempting to do God's work for Him thus forfeiting faith. If it is replied, "Well, God doesn't want us to sit back and not participate in voting for key individuals for public office," then how is voting for key people we find acceptable for public office rather than unacceptable for public office not a strategy itself? But if voting for a particular candidate according to what he or she believes is a strategic maneuver itself, then why is this not trusting strategy more than God? Hastings remains fundamentally contradictory at this point.       

He desires our personal obedience more than he desires us to speculate about whoever the next Supreme Court justice may be [...] Yet, even then, He will still remain in control no matter who sits in the White House, no matter who rules in the courthouse, a higher King should rule in our hearts. Again, Hastings is assuming personal obedience because of a "higher King" ruling our hearts means not voting for Donald Trump (or Clinton). In addition, Hastings implies speculating about who will be on the bench of the Supreme Court somehow goes against personal obedience to God. Is Hastings suggesting who is on the high court bench should not be a valid concern of evangelicals?

Hastings' political naivete, youthful inexperience, and contradictory moral argument finally surface for all to see. While Hastings is an outstanding young communicator, his message remains one of the most vacuous--both intellectually and politically-- I've personally encountered concerning the 2016 presidential election. Hastings should stick to what he's good at--producing quality videos rather than offering political advice or moral theory.

Thus, for evangelicals to uncritically host Hastings' video on their sites--not to mention the Southern Baptist Convention Pastors' Conference president to state that Hastings' view "encapsulates" his view--remains embarrassing concerning the division over voting for Donald Trump. 

Here's the bottom line.

On the one hand, we ought to encourage every evangelical to vote according to his or her conscience. No exceptions. That's what's being an American is--freedom. And it's certainly what it means to be an evangelical--at least being a Baptist evangelical.

On the other hand, we should take full exception with any evangelical--including Paul Hastings, Dave Miller, Russell Moore, or Al Mohler--insisting or implying in some way that a vote for Donald Trump necessarily sacrifices Christian integrity and/or surrenders one's desire to follow God's highest calling upon one's life. 

   

¹Since traditionally, most of the attenders at the Southern Baptist Convention Pastors' Conference have been advocates of the old "Religious Right" so to speak, and therefore have been assumed by Russell Moore and others as being the chief voting block for Donald Trump, I'm wondering how they are going to take to the president of the 2017 Pastors' Conference summarily indicating their vote for Trump as being an unholy alliance with the kingdoms of this world that compromises Christian integrity and shames the Christian church (though Miller did not say this himself, he nonetheless implies it when he says of Hastings' video, "this video encapsulates my view"). Personally, I don't think most of the pastors traditionally attending the conference would appreciate that and perhaps may even demonstrate it by ignoring the 2017 Pastors' Conference over which Miller is president.

²In response to

• a) voting wrongly is an unholy act--this assumption is absurd. All of us have voted wrongly at times in our lives, and to assume we sinned in doing so makes no moral sense whatever. 
• b) voting for a candidate who does not meet our moral expectations is an unholy act--no candidate outside of Jesus could fit.
• c) that the "lesser of two evils" view contains no moral force whatsoever--Hastings among other evangelicals I've considered have no appreciation for Christian moral theory. The "lesser of two evils" approach to conflicting values (i.e. moral norms) in a fallen, sinful world is and has been held by countless evangelicals including J. W. Montgomery, James Montgomery Boice, and even Southern seminary professor, Thomas R. Schreiner. Hastings is apparently unaware of this since he summarily dismisses it as a non-existent Christian option. I don't agree with the position advocated by the "lesser of two evils" option but highly respect many evangelicals who do.    
• d) that the "higher calling of God" demands we vote neither Trump nor Clinton--we legitimately infer from this premise that if Trump voters want to follow the "high calling of God," then they are required to vote for somebody else. Anything less is unholy. Now who's trying to get others to vote against his or her conscience by suggesting that a vote for Trump is a vote against God's "high calling" to "holiness"?

     

Comments

[Lydia]

Just Recieved this today. Have not verified source but he nails it:

In defense of Donald Trump: Try to keep this in mind, Donald Trump did not steal your money. Donald Trump did not raise your taxes. Donald Trump did not quadruple the price of food. Trump did not start a race war. Trump did not desert US soldiers in Benghazi and allow them to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims.

Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda. Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East. Trump did not betray Israel. Trump did not stand idly by, while thousands of Christians were slaughtered in Africa.

Trump did not provide financing and technology to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Trump did not give our military secrets to China. Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia.

Trump did not bomb Muammar Gaddafi and allow him to be killed, then turn over Libya to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Trump did not shrivel our military, fire our best Generals and Admirals and betray our veterans and deny them the care they deserved. Trump did not cripple our economy. Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars. Trump did not double African American unemployment. Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years.

Trump didn't allow the creation of, and sanction Sanctuary Cities. Trump didn't keep the border wide open and invite illegals to pour into our country. Trump didn't release convicted foreign illegals back into the United States after serving their sentence, rather than deporting them.

Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans. Trump did not free the terrorists in Guantanamo bay. Trump did not violate US Constitutional law, or commit treason, hundreds of times. Trump did not trade four of the most dangerous Muslims at Guantanamo for a deserte

[peter lumpkins]

Excellent!!

[Louis]

I agree with the main point of this post - that all Christians should vote their consciences.

I disagree with the belief or assumption that some consciences are more informed, spiritually, than others.

Arguing the pros and cons of candidates is fine. We'll have that until eternity.

But arguing outright or implying that some Christians are ethically, spiritually, or less Gospel oriented than others is not appropriate.

It is also not appropriate for either side of this debate to misstate the other side's position for the purpose of erecting a straw man.

Those who have done these things should apologize, and their apologies should be as wide as their initial pronouncements.

So, if a person did this in the pages of the NYT or NPR, they should correct it in those venues at the first opportunity.

If a person did this on Facebook or by email or in person, they should correct it at the first opportunity.

A few posts back, there was an author discussing how the two sides could make peace and come back together.

I think those apologies, public or private - depending on the venue, would be the best place to start.

I think that would heal the divide quickly.

Any talk shy of that will leave lingering hurts, I suspect.

[peter lumpkins]

Louis,

As always I appreciate your feedback. You mentioned you agreed broadly with the piece and then made exception, "I disagree with the belief or assumption that some consciences are more informed, spiritually, than others."

Is this what you believe is implied within the details of the post? If so, could you tease that out a bit?

On the other hand, though I'm unsure I implied that here, I'm fairly certain I'd agree with it if I understand what you mean by it.

[Louis]

I wrote imprecisely.

Your post did not imply that.

Critics of others' voting patterns have stated or implied, on occasion, that the consciences of such people are not spiritually informed - or that people who vote certain ways are violating their consciences.

I object to those type statements. From what I can tell, we agree on that point.

Thanks for letting me participate.

[Dave M]

Is it possible to separate the individual from the platform/ideology? Is that not what we are trying to do?

[Scott Shaver]

Dave Miller cant tell the "higher calling of God" from a lime green suit in my opinion. Don't know about the Hastings kid. Millers a basket-case.

[Lydia]

"Is it possible to separate the individual from the platform/ideology? Is that not what we are trying to do?"

With Hillary?

[Lydia]

Louis, Are you actually calling for Russ Moore to publicly apologize?

[Lydia]

I don't understand the Neo Cal problem with Trump. They had no similar moral problem with Driscoll or Mahaney and they are pastors! In fact, Neo Cals like Dave Miller defended these guys for a long time.

It makes no sense to me.

[peter lumpkins]

Not sure who 'Dave M' is but quite sure he's not Dave Miller at SBCV.

[Lydia]

Thanks, Pete. I am still not sure what Dave M means. I never vote "personality" if that is what he means by "individual". I vote for the potential " direction" of our country as informed by the amended Constitution. (Yes, I know we are way off course, hence the need to vote on "direction" that seeks more autonomy and responsibilities of citizens instead of a totalitarian nanny state of oligarchs who promote class and race wars and think it is normal we have to prove to the IRS we have health insurance)

[Bill Signer]

I agree with his premise in the video that we should vote out fear of God, not out of fear of what another candidate will do.

I believe our fear of God can drive us to vote against a woman who will certainly damage religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and human flourishing for our country.

I also believe our fear of God can drive us to vote against a man and woman with terrible characters.

[Lydia]

I don't know about anyone else but I am getting a "state church thinking" sort of vibe from the Neo Cals, Russ Moore types and the young followers when it comes to this election.

My big question is why Russ Moore is still at the ERLC? Stop funding it.

[Lydia]

Speaking only in terms of character, who would we vote for today if the candidates were Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr knowing what we know about them both?

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia is right...it ain't about Hillary nor Trump, their personalities or anyone's personality inbetween. It's about the stated platforms with respect to literal interpretation of the Constitution, baby-killing, court justices and the trajectory of the country with respect to both economy and constitutional interpretation over last 20 years.

Not to mention voting rights of the dead and illegal immigrants.

[Scott Shaver]

Might through Alexander Hamilton in that mix Lydia?

[Scott Shaver]

Bill Signer:

Do you think a "NeverTrump" vote now on "principle" will carry as much spiritual, intellectual and visceral weight with our children and grandchildren 10-15 years into more of the same?

They'll be taking out loans to go to high-school while the PTOs have em selling candy and trinkets door to door and they're trying to figure out which public restrooms to use.

They'll be the ones bearing the brunt of the impact of "principled" decisions now.

"NeverTrump" at this point (especially from "evangelicals" with religious objections) could be intepretated by some as good old egocentric pride with a touch of "don't-give-a-flip-for-anybody but me" thrown in for flavoring.

[Scott Shaver]

Agree with Pete. Don't think Dave M is the SBCV guy.

SBCV guys terrified of and not very good at working outside his own very tightly conditioned and controlled platform of expression.

[Lydia]

Scott, Alexander H was not American born, native son. His rise, patriotism and brilliance is epic despite his problematic character and ridiculous end.

It is not excusing sin to consider these early founders as candidates today knowing what we know. We have always had this problem. Adams was of high moral character but vehemently opposed because of his staunch federalism and the alien-sedition act which was tyrannical. (He is one of my favs as a curmudgeonly thin skinned Founder)

Jefferson, brilliant as he was, was still a major cad. This is a man who could not give up his high life even though it meant cheating. He is also known for saying the 'tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants'. Can you imagine any candidate daring to write such a thing today?

Not to mention Jefferson spoke a good game on slavery but was known to break up families to make a buck. The slave owning Washington (inherited from Martha) would not even do such a thing and was continually struggling financially. Still, he made a living off slavery.

So what are we even talking about when it comes to Trump/Hillary? The direction of the country or their nasty personalities and morality? Milking the American people as public servants is moral? Or, is the whole thing a litmus test on cult of personality thinking.

[Scott Shaver]

Lydia, I tend to think it's the latter scenario you've proposed (i.e. litmus tests on cult of personality thinking).

With regard to Trump and Hillary along those lines, don't think Trump has killed anybody that we know of. Hillary has the blood of tens of thousands upon her hands. Look at Lybia as one example.

[Louis]

Lydia:

I am NOT calling on Russell Moore to resign. I actually think he is doing a good job. Not everyone pleases me all the time.

I am saying that wounds would be healed in the SBC if apologies were made, all around. By all sides. By whomever.

[Louis]

Dave Miller asks a good question about supporting the individual vs. the platform.

That is a good question and this election tests that issue.

But there are 2 things to keep in mind as we do that.

First, elections are not about the selection of candidates. We have ended up with 2 persons in the major parties who want to be President. Therefore, for those who want to cast a vote to help elect the President, the choice is between these two. If both are morally flawed, are Christians prohibited from voting for either?

Second, history is replete with difficulties regarding policy vs. person issues. Perhaps the most difficult one to deal with is Martin Luther King. We all know about his sordid personal life. One day, when the FBI and other surveillance tapes are released, I suspect we will be shocked.

But what he did for Civil Rights was undeniably great.

So, are Christians prohibited from holding him up as a great leader, or do we make distinctions and recognize his greatness, but also do not affirm his failings?

Or, had those tapes been released in 1964, should Christians have opposed King's efforts because of his failings?

There are many examples we could all go through.

That is a difficult question to answer, and at the very least Christians need to be gracious enough to give each other space when it comes to voting and other issues that present this same dilemma.

[Dave M]

No, no, different Dave "M." I'm just an old pastor at a small SBC church in OH.

Lydia, I believe I agree with you. We are not electing a religious leader for the country.

[Max]

Dave M writes "We are not electing a religious leader for the country."

According to my aging memory, I believe the only ordained minister to serve as POTUS was James Garfield ... and someone shot him! But, we have had Southern Baptists serve in that high office, including Bill Clinton (he even sang in the church choir and look where that got us). I remember falling for "Vote for Clinton, he is a faithful Southern Baptist" mumbo-jumbo at the time ... I even fell for that when Jimmy Carter ran. It seems that every candidate gets Jesus before the election or retrieves Him from their past to court the Evangelical vote.

[Lydia]

"I am NOT calling on Russell Moore to resign. I actually think he is doing a good job. Not everyone pleases me all the time."

I was referring to your position on an apology. Russ Moore took the lead on proclaiming Trump voters as lacking moral convictions. But you seem to be implying vague apologies from the SBC will heal the division.

I don't doubt you think Moore is "doing a good job". Personally, I think the concept of an ERLC is problematic for Baptists. To have one person attempting to speak for or represent all Baptists on such issues? It is unthinkable. And wrong. I have to make it known Moore cannot represent me. For one thing, he is way too immature. A loose cannon who seeks the limelight to build the Moore brand.

[Lydia]

Sorry, Dave M! I think the word "platform" threw me off. Trump is so anti establishment I am not sure it fits. But it could.

I tend to take a longer view of these things. That is why all the hysteria over "temperament" and "morals" sounds silly to me. Especially after the Clintons schooled us on such things as 'private" back in the 90's.

If we are going to even begin to turn this Titanic mess, we are going to have to kiss a lot of anti establishment frogs. And when the anti establishment elected ones become establishment, we will have to do it again. And again. It's the way it is supposed to work. Public service is a sacrifice, Not a way to milk the electorate and become protected oligarchs.

Here is an example. A very silly man was elected to represent my district to congress many years ago. He was so pitiful he served one term. Yet. Yet. He has a full government Federal pension and healthcare for the rest of his life. That is an oligarchy voting themselves protection at our expense that we cannot have but are supposed to pay for.

And both parties agree to such things. We have to start somewhere to right this ship. And a good place to start is establishment thinking.

[Max]

Lydia writes "Personally, I think the concept of an ERLC is problematic for Baptists. To have one person attempting to speak for or represent all Baptists on such issues?"

If you polled Southern Baptists coming out of church on Sunday morning, most would not even know who Russell Moore is, that an ERLC exists, and they support both. And 'that' is problematic!

Heck, the average Southern Baptist doesn't even know that their denomination is being systematically Calvinized, let alone what some guy they don't know is saying their position is on critical issues of the day!

[Lydia]

Max, what is important to Russ Moore is that the establishment pundits with cameras and ink space know who he is. (Wink)

[Dave M]

Lydia writes, "He has a full government Federal pension and healthcare for the rest of his life."

I served 20 years in the military and now get to pay for Medicare. What a deal!

[Lydia]

https://thouarttheman.org/2016/10/14/ethicsreligiouslibertycommission/#comment-2827

Long but worth the read. Shocking. The ERLC is a UN NGO consultant and part of their charter/description is dealing with Climate Change? The ERLC opened a ME office?

Another reason why Moore is so blatantly anti Trump? Hillary is pro UN and agrees with their elite globalist agenda. As does Moore.

Now it is making sense why the Neo Cal pastors on blogs were so hysterical and lacking basic common sense in demanding massive refugee programs. They got the memo on what to think.

[Lydia]

Dave,

You and I are peasants who are not to question the great leaders who know best for us. They must be protected and comfortable at all cost to us, even to those who served our country in a real way.

[Max]

Lydia writes "What is important to Russ Moore is that the establishment pundits with cameras and ink space know who he is."

Yep, he would have a much easier row to hoe in a Hillary presidency. Trump would marginalize him quickly.

I suspect that the Father has already marginalized 21st century Southern Baptists. We are most likely on the periphery with His Kingdom on earth right now the way we are behaving!

[Mallen]

What would Jesus think of an "Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission"?

[Scott Shaver]

I don't know Mallen. Why don't you enlighten us?

[Mallen]

Scott, Are you the lap dog for this site? Really, you don't need to troll every comment I make.

Much appreciated.

[Scott Shaver]

Mallen.

Just as I figured. No substance, no content. You could make yourself more useful by tearing-down Trump signs in the yards of your neighbors. Or does your mother allow you out of her basement during the day?

I got your Troll scumbag.

[Mallen]

Says Scott Shaver, the guy who trolls on every blog post on this site and continues to troll my comments! You dont have to be the website troll Scott. I'm sure Peter didn't officially appoint you TROLLER-IN-CHIEF.

Anyone who reads these blogs finds your troll response to everyone who comments here. Is it possible for you to refrain from trolling this comment? I doubt it.

[Scott Shaver]

Mallen: It kinda looks like you enjoy it in a sick sort of way😚

[Mallen]

I'm a "Troll scumbag" for asking a question on this site, to which you continue to harass and troll me for?

Examine yourself.

[peter lumpkins]

Mallen,

Look. It's obvious you're purposely priming the pump of this useless exchange by your continued banter. I've shown readers here even when you do try to contribute content, you make outlandish points and non sequitur leaps. We'll leave the rest to readers. It's time to move on.

Have a good day.

With that, I am...
Peter