Christians and Voting: Perspectives on the Upcoming Election

* Here is a guest post from a friend of mine regarding the upcoming election.

Christians and Voting

by Michael G Muñoz, D.Be.

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves;

so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Mat 10:16)

 So, there’s been a lot of heat (mixed with some silliness), but I wonder how much light. I’m speaking about the upcoming election and how Christians ought to vote. It’s been either Christians must vote for Trump or we are guilty of murdering babies. Or, Christians are sinners if they vote for Hillary because we would be electing a murdering socialist. And on-and-on it goes.

While politics is neither the answer or the savior to our nations woes, we are still given the opportunity and privilege of engaging in it wisely and to the glory of God. So, what principles can we use to help guide us in what we should do when we enter the voting booth? As with any ethical issue, I think there are three perspectives that need to be considered: Norms (Biblical/moral principles), the situation, as well as the personal aspect. So with much tentativeness and a desire to start a dialogue (though, I realize, it’s pretty late in the game; but this could be helpful for the next election as well), here is what I have been grappling with.

Norms

The normative perspective considers God’s authority over all of creation and takes account of biblical imperatives, moral principles, and godly wisdom which guide us concerning any given moral question. Can we proclaim it a sin if a Christian does not vote? I don’t think so. However, I think there are some biblical principles that point us in the direction of the responsibility and wisdom in exercising our constitutional right to vote. 1 Tim 2:1-2 instructs us to pray for all men, specifically including “kings and all who are in authority.” Why? So that we may lead “tranquil and quiet” lives. Surely our prayers are meant for their well-being as well as to influence their decision making in a godly direction. It seems a perfectly legitimate application of this verse to begin in the ballot box. In Rom 13:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-15, we are instructed, “to be in subjection to” and “submit” to those in authority. It seems the height of folly to not exercise what control we have been given in choosing our leaders if honoring God involves submitting to them.

What kind of leaders should we choose? The wisdom literature provides important and general characteristics of a good king. He should be just (Pro 8:15; 20:8), he should not be a wicked man, but one of righteous character (Pro 16:12), he should be wise and righteous (Pro 20:26, 28), and most of all, he should honor and obey God (Psa 2). Because Christ has been given, “all authority . . .  in heaven and on earth (Mat 28:18), because all earthly rulers ought to bow the knee to Him (Psa 2; Phil 2:9-11), and because Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:16), it is appropriate to look for these characteristics in the leaders we choose. Certainly wisdom would also instruct us to consider other necessary qualifications for the job at hand, but character is foundational. The problem in the current election—specifically with the only two candidates with a chance of winning (see below)—is we don’t have a righteous candidate from which to choose. What do we do now? We turn to the next two perspectives for further guidance.

The Situation

The situational perspective takes account of God’s sovereign control over all things and considers context, goals, and probable or desired outcomes. Like it or not, we have a two party system. That means that unless God works a miracle, there are only two possible candidates with a chance at the presidency—Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In other words, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, or any other write-in candidate have the proverbial “snowballs chance in hell” of being elected. However, they can most certainly affect the outcome of the election. How so?

I’ve heard it said that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the other party—depending whether you are a Republican or Democrat. The typical response to this assertion is that it is logically fallacious. I think this depends on what is meant by the assertion. The English language is flexible and we don’t always speak in logic-ese. It is true, by not voting for one viable candidate, you are not adding a vote to the other party’s candidate. However, I think what is meant by the assertion, which illustrates how the third party candidates can most certainly affect the election, is as follows. To make the math simple let’s assume that only 30 people can and are voting—15 Democrats and 15 Republicans. If everyone voted according to party line it would be a draw. However, if all the Republicans voted the party line, but only 10 Democrats voted the party line and 5 voted third party, then the Republican candidate would win. This, I think, is what is meant by the assertion and I think it is sound reasoning. So, we can practically conclude that a third party or write-in vote helps one of the two mainline candidates. Which one do you want to help? Then vote accordingly.

I have heard some Christian commentators say that America is under the judgment of God. While I’m not a prophet, I tend to agree with this. After Roe v. Wade (abortion) and Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage), it’s hard to imagine God blessing America. However, we are reminded often in Scripture that if we turn from our wickedness, repent, and submit to God (e.g., 2 Chr 6:36-39; Jer 18:5-10), He may relent. The Great Commission (Mat 28:19-20) instructs us to “disciple the nations.” We can be confident in this task, because Jesus promises to be with us, “even to the end of the age.” My point is that whether we are under the judgment of God or not, we should never give up hope and we should never quit fighting to stem the tide and reverse the judgment. Voting is a way of doing this.

Personal Aspect

The personal perspective asks: What can I do? And what are my motives for doing so? This perspective applies biblical virtues to a given situation. So, wisdom dictates we ought to vote and we should do so relying on the lovingkindness, compassion, and grace of God. We vote within an imperfect and seemingly thoroughly secular system (though arguably it was never meant to be such). It is pretty obvious that we are not going to end up with a righteous and godly president this election cycle. And practically speaking, a third party vote or write-in a candidate will actually help one of the mainline candidates win the election. What do we do?

I’ve heard many say that they cannot vote for either of the mainline candidates with a clear conscience; so, they will either not vote or write-in their choice—regardless of the outcome. But is having a clear conscience that simple? Are there no other issues involved (oh, that life was that simple)? If nothing else, is it possible by voting for a mainline candidate we could slow the tide of America’s eventual, deserved, and seemingly inevitable destruction? These are the questions that Christians should take to the ballot box. We should go into the voting booth “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” I believe our innocence is affected by our desire to glorify God while recognizing the imperfect, secular system we must work within. So, what else should we wisely consider? Here is where it becomes very difficult because we cannot predict the future with the omniscience only possessed by God. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some of the issues we as Christians ought to consider are the following: Religious liberty, supreme court nominees, the rights of the traditional family, marriage, abortion, physician assisted suicide, terrorism and border safety, genetic science, the escalation of pornography, and so much more. Many will say that a President can’t really affect any of these issues or that these concerns fall within the authority and purview of Congress. And if our system was working properly, this would be correct. However, aside from our broken system, history proves that a president can affect outcomes concerning issues like the ones listed above. Many a president knew how to use the bully-pulpit and influence the nation.

Others will say that we cannot rely on either mainline candidate to affect godly and moral change in any of these areas. This may be true. We may simply have to ask, “Which candidate will do the least amount of damage?” And then vote accordingly. Remember, Christians are not of this world, but we are placed directly within it and we are called to do everything in our power to affect change and work toward discipling the nations.

  

Parting Words

As you go to the polls and make some tough choices early this November, please, most of all, remember the words of our Lord:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).

This commandment is for Christ-followers. Be gracious to your brothers and sisters who may disagree with you. By all means vote your conscience, but do so with wisdom and an understanding of how far the issues extend and thus what falls within the domain of your conscience.

Questioning Dr. Grudem's Defense of Trump

Dr. Wayne Grudem has recently written an essay arguing the case for conservative evangelicals to vote for Donald Trump as the next President of the United States.  His essay, posted as Townhall.com, is entitled Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.

Voting for Trump: Permissible or Obligatory?

It is important to note that Dr. Grudem is not simply arguing that it is moral permissible to vote for Donald Trump.  Rather, as one reads the essay it becomes clear that Dr. Grudem is arguing that is morally obligatory to vote for Donald Trump.  In the section "A good candidate with flaws" Dr. Grudem writes:

I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent.  In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.

Notice that the first sentence in this quotation speaks to the issue of moral permissibility whereas the second sentence moves closer to moral obligation.  Dr. Grudem's scriptural arguments also move in this direction.  In the section "Seek the good of the nation" Dr. Grudem quotes three biblical passages.  The directive of Jeremiah 29.7 to "seek the welfare of the city" is applied to modern Christians in the U.S. so that they "have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will 'seek the welfare' of the United States.  Dr. Grudem claims that failure to vote for Trump in a close election means that the individual Christian is directly helping Hillary Clinton.

Grudem's next passage is set up this way:

Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives.  But this can change.  This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions.  I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action.  Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: "Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin" (James 4:17).

The implication seems to be that failure to vote for Trump is sin--thus voting for Trump is morally obligated.

Dr. Grudem argues against not voting for Trump in the following manner:

Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote.  But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing.  The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: "On the day you stood aloof, on the day that ... foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them" (Obadiah 1:11).

The argument seems to be that failure to exercise one's "moral responsibility" to vote for Trump renders one like the evil nation of Edom who was compared to the vicious and cruel Babylonians.

Further evidence that Dr. Grudem is arguing for moral obligation in voting for Trump is how he ends the essay.

But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation's only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies.  And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny. (Bold-face added)

The guilt is piled high against those who dare to vote any other way except for Trump!  Here we are a long way away from the beginning of Dr. Grudem's essay where he called for "patience" and "respect" as "thoughtful citizens" "calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences."  With such a long litany of evils--all the death and destruction--that one will be committing for failing to vote for Trump how could one come to any other conclusion except that voting for Trump is morally obligatory.

So what's the point?  Simply this: If Dr. Grudem is going to lay the moral obligation of voting for Donald Trump upon all Christians he is going to have to provide a sufficient biblical theological rationale for so doing.  Failure to do this will mean that Dr. Grudem is coming dangerously close to "teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15.9).

The Use of Scripture

Dr. Grudem has been a strong and tireless supporter of the authority, inspiration, and inerrancy of Scripture in his various writings.  It is no surprise, then, that he would seek the wisdom of the Word of God to be applied to the political decision-making process.  As noted above Dr. Grudem appeals to Jeremiah 29.7; James 4.17; and Obadiah 11 to anchor his reasoning and exhortations in the sacred text.  

Regarding the first two passages, I agree that Christians should "seek the welfare of the city" and that it is sin when one fails to do the thing which one knows he or she ought to do.  My concern is not with the meaning of the texts but in their application.  For Dr. Grudem it appears that only voting for Trump is a path of seeking the welfare of the city.  Also, failure to vote for Trump is to know the right thing to do but refuse to do it.  Now this reasoning only works if, at a minimum, Dr. Grudem's analysis of Trump's character as a politician and Trump's policies are what Dr. Grudem believes them to be.  As will be seen below there are reasons to be skeptical of this.  

But is it true that only be voting for Trump an evangelical Christian can seek the welfare of the city?  Might there not be other avenues available in this election for Christians to seek the welfare of the city?  A failure to vote for Trump does not automatically entail that one is violating Jeremiah 29.7.  Furthermore, a failure to vote for Trump is a violation of James 4.17 only if Dr. Grudem's analysis of Trump is correct.  Other intelligent Christians have come to differing conclusions about Trump's character and potential policies.  Are they really sinning against the knowledge that they have of the right thing to do?

We need to remember the importance of humility in our applications of Scripture.  One of Dr. Grudem's professors and a fellow-theologian, John Frame, has written:

It is also the case, as we mentioned before, that many issues of the modern day are not specifically discussed in scripture. If we cannot fax the apostles to learn their view of baptism, much less can we determine directly what they would say about nuclear weaponry, the government role in welfare, the medical use of life-support equipment. Here too, there are biblical principles which apply; but the argument can be complicated. It is not as if the apostles were readily available for interviews.

In facing our epistemological disadvantages, the first thing to be said is that God understands. He is the Lord of history. His providence has planned and controlled it. It is no accident that we are in the present epistemological situation. That situation, uncomfortable as it may be at times, suits God’s purposes perfectly, and we must be thankful for it. We should not murmur or complain, as Israel in the wilderness. When someone calls and asks me a hard question, say, about whether they should remove life support systems from a dying relative, I usually begin by saying that these are, after all, hard questions, and that God understands how hard they are for us. We cannot fax the apostles, but He doesn’t expect us to. He has left us with Scripture and the Spirit’s illumination, and He has determined that that is enough. We may fumble around in searching for answers. We may make decisions which we regret later on, because we hadn’t at first considered all the relevant principles and facts. But God understands that! He doesn’t expect us to be perfect theologians. He is not waiting up in heaven with a club to hit us over the head when we make an exegetical mistake.

In such situations, it is helpful to remember that we are justified by faith, not by works, nor, therefore, by ethical accuracy. That comfort does not, of course, excuse us from hard thinking. If God has justified us, we will want to please him, and we will make intellectual and other efforts to do what he wants. But the sincerity of such efforts is not measured by the perfection of the results. We may try very hard to apply biblical principles and come up with an answer that later proves inadequate. Yet God will still honor the attempt. He knows the heart, and he takes into consideration the obstacles (including epistemological) that we must overcome.  Between the Apostles and the Parousia: Bearing the Burderns of Change and Knowledge

What about Obadiah 11--is a Christian who doesn't vote for Trump either because of confusion (i.e., "I'm not sure I can in good conscience vote for this man due to his character and policies.") or because of conviction (i.e., "As a Christian who has looked at this man and his policies I will not vote him so that I might be faithful to God.") really "standing aloof" in violation of Obadiah 11?  Dr. Grudem and I are agreed that any proper handling handling of the Biblical text must be contextual in nature.  We ought not to pull a phrase or verse out of a larger literary context.  Here is the larger context of Obadiah 11--verses 10-14:

¹⁰Because of violence to your brother Jacob, you will be covered with shame, and you will be cut off forever.  ¹¹On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that strangers carried off his wealth, and foreigners entered his gate and cast lots for Jerusalem—you too were as one of them.  ¹²Do not gloat over your brother’s day, the day of misfortune.  And do not rejoice over the sons of Judah in their destruction; yes, do not boast in the day of their distress.  ¹³Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their disaster.  Yes, you, do not gloat over their calamity in the day of their disaster.  ¹⁴Do not stand at the fork of the road to cut down their fugitives; and do not imprison their survivors in the day of their distress.

Evangelical biblical scholar Willem VanGemeren explains the meaning of this judgment oracle upon Edom:

This short prophecy is directed specifically against Edom for their pride and hatred of their "brother" Jacob (v. 10; see Amos 1:11).  The Edomites boasted about the trouble that had come upon the people of Judah (vv. 11-12).  They collaborated with the Babylonians by entrapping the Judeans at intersections.  They openly rejoiced in Judah's trouble and encouraged the Babylonians.  Great was their hatred of Judah and even greater their joy when Jerusalem was razed and desecrated by the Babylonian troops.  They had no regard for the miserable lives of the Jews.  The fall of Jerusalem was the fulfillment of their national dream: the end of Israel.

VanGemeren goes on to note:

The prophecy, however, should not be restricted to Edom, because Edom is representative of all nations hostile to the Lord and to the establishment of his kingdom on earth (Isa. 34:1-2, 6; Joel 3:19; Amos 9:12).  Notice how Obadiah expanded the original vision concerning Edom's fall to include all nations... (here VanGemeren quotes vv. 15-16 with its mention of "all nations.")  Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), 143. 

In light of this contextual reading of Obadiah, is it really the case that a Christian who refuses to vote for Trump due to confusion or conviction is collaborating with anti-God forces to hinder God's kingdom?  I think not.  I believe that Dr. Grudem has been too hasty to pull a few phrases from Obadiah and misapply them to his Christian brothers and sisters who disagree with his political analysis.

The Use of Logic

Dr. Grudem writes in his defense of voting for Trump:

If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win.  Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?  

The first to notice is Dr. Grudem's remark about "directly" helping Hillary Clinton by voting for a write-in candidate.  This is false.  At best this would be "indirectly" helping Clinton.  To "directly" help Clinton one would need to vote for her.  Now for some this may seem like a pedantic and overly subtle point.  My concern is that Dr. Grudem has been teaching ethics for 39 years and surely understands the nuances of ethical analysis which involve such distinctions.  Why does he overstate the case?

In terms of the logic of voting or not voting for a candidate I find the logical analysis of Reformed evangelical theologian and philosopher James Anderson much more convincing:

One of the reasons put forward by some conservatives for voting for the controversial Republican nominee is that not voting for him would be “a vote for Hillary”. It’s important to understand why this is a really bad argument.

In the first place, the claim itself is inaccurate. If there are only two candidates, A and B, and Oscar doesn’t vote for A, that could mean one of two things:

(1) Oscar votes for B rather than A.

(2) Oscar votes for neither A nor B.

Clearly these aren’t equivalent, because (1) hinders A’s chances of winning more than (2) does.

But it’s worse than that: the reasoning here is incoherent, because if a non-vote for A is a vote for B, then by parity of reasoning a non-vote for B is a vote for A, from which it follows that not voting for either candidate is voting for both candidates. On the most charitable interpretation, that simply means not voting at all would be neutral with respect to the candidates: it wouldn’t favor either of them. On a less charitable interpretation, it’s just a nonsensical conclusion.

Perhaps there are some good reasons for conservatives to cast their vote for the Republican presidential ticket in 2016, but this isn’t one of them.

Addendum: I should add that the same incoherence afflicts another popular argument, namely, that not voting would “allow Hillary to win”. If a non-vote for A would allow B to win, then equally a non-vote for B would allow A to win, in which case not voting for either candidate would allow both candidates to win, which is absurd. (Actually, the conclusion in this case could be interpreted somewhat more charitably: not voting would allow either candidate to win. But again this just highlights the neutrality of a non-vote.) A Non-Vote Is Not a Vote

Trusting Trump: Should We?

Much of Dr. Grudem's essay is taken up with comparing the potential outcomes of a Clinton and Trump presidency.  Dr. Grudem seems to have a very trusting attitude toward Trump.  There are indications that he may not be telling the truth.  For example, Dr. Grudem speaks of Trump's "remarkable children."  But Donald Trump Jr. seems to think that his father will change the way he governs from what he has stated on social issues:

“I’m totally for it,” Trump Jr. says of gay marriage. “One of my best friends growing up was gay. ... It’s never been an issue for me. ... I think there was a time in my life, probably in college, that I wished every guy was gay, because it just meant more women for me! ‘I don’t know why you guys have a problem with this thing! I think it’d be great! I wish everyone was gay!’ ... That’s always the way I thought about it. ... I have no issue with it. If I have to suffer through marriage, why shouldn’t they?”

He goes on to express his views on abortion, which diverge from those of the average conservative: “Honestly, for me, abortion, I don’t get it. I don’t even understand how it’s a political issue. I don’t understand how there is one issue for voters for that. I don’t understand how you can tell someone what they can or can’t do. And I’m sort of the same way with [gay marriage]. ... I can’t buy into the abortion argument. I wish the Republicans would drop it as part of their platform.”

It’s no secret that his father, Donald Trump, Sr., has different views on these issues. Don Jr. explains, “In terms of my father’s political views ... in the grand scheme of things, there’s probably other things he’d be concerned about first, given the state of the world and our economy, etc., etc. ... I think part of it, and perhaps the shame of being a conservative, is you almost have to have those kind of stances to win any kind of primary. And then you have to basically sell out and become a moderate in the middle, just like you have to do if you’re on the liberal side of the political spectrum.”  Donald Trump, Jr. Opens Up About Gay Marriage, Women's Right, and His Love of Hunting

Why does Dr. Grudem believe Donald Trump?  Steve Hays makes an interesting conjecture:

I think Grudem's problem is that he's guileless, and so he projects his guilelessness onto Trump. Some people are too good to understand evil people. Their virtue blinds them to evil people. They can't relate to evil people. They can't see past the mask. They can't work themselves into that devious mindset. Ironically, Grudem is too ingenuous to recognize what a conman Trump is. That's too alien to Grudem's own character. Unfortunately, that makes him a easy mark for imposters like Trump. Patsies for Trump

Conclusion

More could be said about Dr. Grudem's defense of Trump but others have done some of this heavy lifting (see below).  My main concerns revolve around Dr. Grudem raising the bar too high by making voting for Donald Trump morally obligatory and heaping guilt upon those who choose otherwise. Dr. Grudem's use of Scripture and logic is faulty. Furthermore, there are reasons to be suspicious of Donald Trump's conservative claims. 

 Resources:

 

Steve Hays' piece--Patsies for Trump-- is an important point by point response to Dr. Grudem's essay.

Evangelical philosopher John Mark Reynolds' essay A Good Man Justifies a Wicked Deed: Grudem on Trump

Andy Naselli has a good piece on voting one's conscience.  There is also a brief response to Grudem's essay: Can You Vote for Donald Trump with a Clear Conscience?

Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo's essay provides an important perspective on character: The Problem of Character: Why Conservatives Must Reject Donald Trump

Matthew J. Franck has an important piece on voting one's conscience: A Vote's Consequences and a Voter's Conscience 

On Not Voting for Trump: The Consequences for Logic and Conscience

Two recent pieces regarding the implications for not voting for Trump (if one is a Republican and would normally vote for the Republican candidate) are helpful in spelling out the logical consequences and the effects on one's conscience.

James Anderson has written a short but tightly argued piece entitled A Non-Vote Is Not a Vote.

Here is Anderson's post:

One of the reasons put forward by some conservatives for voting for the controversial Republican nominee is that not voting for him would be “a vote for Hillary”. It’s important to understand why this is a really bad argument.

In the first place, the claim itself is inaccurate. If there are only two candidates, A and B, and Oscar doesn’t vote for A, that could mean one of two things:

(1) Oscar votes for B rather than A.

(2) Oscar votes for neither A nor B.

Clearly these aren’t equivalent, because (1) hinders A’s chances of winning more than (2) does.

But it’s worse than that: the reasoning here is incoherent, because if a non-vote for A is a vote for B, then by parity of reasoning a non-vote for B is a vote for A, from which it follows that not voting for either candidate is voting for both candidates. On the most charitable interpretation, that simply means not voting at all would be neutral with respect to the candidates: it wouldn’t favor either of them. On a less charitable interpretation, it’s just a nonsensical conclusion.

Perhaps there are some good reasons for conservatives to cast their vote for the Republican presidential ticket in 2016, but this isn’t one of them.

Addendum: I should add that the same incoherence afflicts another popular argument, namely, that not voting would “allow Hillary to win”. If a non-vote for A would allow B to win, then equally a non-vote for B would allow A to win, in which case not voting for either candidate would allow both candidates to win, which is absurd. (Actually, the conclusion in this case could be interpreted somewhat more charitably: not voting would allow either candidate to win. But again this just highlights the neutrality of a non-vote.)

The second essay comes from Matthew J. Franck--A Vote's Consequences and a Voter's Conscience.

A few selections from Franck's essay:

 Recently, while I was having lunch with some young colleagues at the Witherspoon Institute, one of them asked me a pointed question. “If your vote were the deciding one in the election, with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becoming president on the basis of your vote alone, for which one would you vote?”

It was an earnest question, and I gave an honest answer. But then I felt obliged to object to the question, and I want to elaborate upon my objections here. I will not repeat my honest answer, for reasons I hope will become plain.

....

But the secrecy and the rough simultaneity of our ballot-casting are just what enable people to frame the question my colleague asked me. The question—“If your vote were decisive, what would you do?”—invites us to think of the civic function of voting as though everything hung on that one vote each of us casts. This invitation, to vote as if the weight of the world were on my shoulders alone, is what I refuse to accept.

The reason I decline the invitation is not just that the weight is not on my shoulders. It is that this is really an invitation to a kind of consequentialism in the ethics of voting. I don’t intend to plunge into the philosophical debate between consequentialist and deontological ethics, which is not in my field anyway. I mean to make a much more informal and homely point: it is wrong to think of a vote not cast for Leading Contender A as a de facto vote cast for Leading Contender B.

I have good friends thinking this way right now. Although, as fellow conservatives, we think very alike on nearly everything in political life, the national disaster of the choice between Trump and Clinton has produced diametrically opposed conclusions. One close friend says that the harm Hillary Clinton would do, building on Barack Obama’s eight years, would be so incalculably awful that the risk of an inept, foolish, and thuggish Donald Trump presidency is worth taking in order to prevent Clinton’s victory. Therefore, he is inclined to hold his nose and vote for Trump, believing that abstention or a “thrown away” vote on a third alternative with no chance to win would be morally indistinguishable from a vote for Clinton. (Here is a column exemplifying this friend’s view.)

Another close friend draws the opposite conclusion, recoiling so powerfully from Trump’s politics of arrogance, folly, and contempt for others that this Republican of many years announces he will pull the lever for Clinton, preferring an enemy he can imagine fighting and partly constraining (and even agreeing with on occasion) to a “leader” who may grievously wound the party, the conservative cause, and the country itself. For this friend, any vote not cast for Clinton is “objectively” a vote for Trump and thus a kind of moral calamity. (Here is a column exemplifying this friend’s view.)

My fond regard for these two good and thoughtful friends, lifelong conservatives both, is not diminished by our disagreements. And I do disagree with both of them. For my part, my conscience is more important to me than the outcome of this presidential election. I cannot in good conscience vote for either Clinton or Trump. What matters for me is that I cannot bring myself to intend, to will the victory of either of these ludicrously unacceptable presidential candidates. And that is what a vote for one of them would be—an act of willing that Clinton or Trump be president, carry out her or his stated policy aims, and bring his or her fundamentally bad character to the highest office in the land.

...

 Now, however, we really do have two evils to choose between—or to decline choosing. Neither Trump nor Clinton has a single redeeming characteristic that recommends him or her to the presidency of the United States—at least none that is not decisively outweighed by some other damning characteristic. Clinton’s much vaunted “experience” is a career record of ghastly misjudgments in foreign policy, paired with a consistently authoritarian and illiberal “progressivism” in domestic policy, seemingly intent on unraveling the social fabric that makes a decent society. And there is no need to rehearse her and her husband’s history of dishonesty, corruption, and irresponsibility, capped most recently by her obvious breach of the statutes protecting national security secrets.

As for Trump, was there ever a candidate more obviously unqualified for high public office, as measured by his dearth of relevant knowledge and experience, his willfulness and self-absorption, his compulsive lying and inconsistency, his manipulative using of other people, his smash-mouth rhetoric and low character? For anyone professing conservative principles, the first problem with Trump is that he is not one of us, has never been one of us, shows no sign or capacity of becoming one of us, and hardly cares to pretend to be one of us. Even “what about the Supreme Court?” has no grip on my conscience when I try to imagine Donald Trump in the Oval Office. I cannot trust him to choose judicial nominees wisely, and there are other things whose cumulative weight is greater even than this variable.

We haven’t even the consolation of thinking of Trump as a certain kind of Republican who is not actually conservative but who at least recognizes our vocabulary when he hears it. No, Trump would not know a conservative principle if it kicked him in the shins. This is a nominee who, in my estimation, cannot earn my vote even as a “lesser evil” or an “at least he’s not Hillary” candidate. I waver between believing that his defeat would be the worst thing to happen to our country and believing that his victory would be.

....

 After a lifetime of studying politics, I have finally, thanks to the electoral annus horribilis of 2016, arrived at an ethic of voting that I can defend against all rival ethics. It is simply this: Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character. Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.

Evangelicals and Trump: The Lack of Public Theology and the Life of the Mind

Scott Waller has a fascinating article entitled Why Many Evangelicals Support Donald Trump over at The Federalist.  Here is a key section from Waller's piece:

Herein, perhaps, lies the reason why so many evangelicals have tossed their electoral hats in with Trump: as an evangelical community, few of its leaders speak about the public importance of faith and the implications of that faith in the public square. Perhaps even fewer demonstrate through their teaching what it would look like for an evangelical to live an integrated, holistic life in which theology speaks to the matters of public import beyond the private sphere of an individual’s life.

If, as Aristotle argued, politics is an inherently moral venture, then those within the evangelical community certainly have a voice in offering insights into what a just and moral state should look like and what kinds of policies a just political order must pursue. We have to ask ourselves when was the last time we were offered such teaching from our pulpits. If the answer to that question is never or rarely, then what believers are not-so-implicitly being fed is that the Christian faith cannot speak to areas of public import. As a result, evangelical voting behavior in these electoral contests may well reflect this privatization of faith.

Exit polling data indicates that support for Trump among evangelicals is lowest with those who are most educated and express highest levels of religiosity. Thus, it is not surprising that those like Lucado would be less likely to support Trump’s candidacy. Yet why are so many who fill pews lining up behind Trump? Perhaps the fruits of this electoral conundrum are the results of seeds evangelicalism has sown for decades.

Evangelical voting behavior in these electoral contests may well reflect this privatization of faith.  If from our pulpits people rarely, if ever, hear a sermon demonstrating that the Christian faith has pertinence beyond the confines of the church walls and the private spheres of our individual lives, are we not sowing into our congregants the idea of a public-private dichotomy? Believers have mistakenly been told that while faith has much to say about an individual’s relationship with God, it does not have anything to say about the public sphere.

If the realm of politics is seen as part of this public sphere, then is it any surprise that doctrine would be seen increasingly as tangential as we make decisions about whom to elect in this realm? At the very least, should we not be encouraged to reflect upon biblical principles regarding character and leadership as we assess candidates for public office?

Five years ago in a blog post entitled Moral Formation in the Church I drew attention to the words of J. Daryl Charles which are especially pertinent in light of Waller's piece.

A number of years ago Mark Noll alerted the Christian community to "the scandal of the evangelical mind."  Evangelical ethicist J. Daryl Charles echoes these thoughts in his book Between Pacificism and Jihad: Just War and Christian Tradition (IVP, 2005).  Although written to address the ethics of war and the Just War tradition, Charles has some introductory comments that are much broader in application for evangelical social ethics. 

"In The Unformed Conscience of Evangelicalism I lamented the absence of moral formation in the church's teaching and preaching and in congregational life.  My basic argument was this: there is no such thing as an evangelical social ethic or a broadly Protestant ethic, for that matter.  To be sure, we have elevated church growth to a virtual science.  We have written and sold millions upon millions of heart-warming and inspirational Christian "breakthrough" books.  We have made endless forays into the contemporary music scene.  And we are as "seeker-friendly" as any group on the face of the earth.  But when it comes to giving a reason for the hope within or presenting a rationale for Christian social ethics or offering an explanation of the church's traditional teaching on perennial ethical issues, we are all but clueless."  (pp. 10-11)

Charles goes on to offer some reasons for this lack of evangelical social ethics.

"Is it likely that the evangelicals' relative absence in the public square is due, among other things, to an underdeveloped theology of creation, humanity and culture?  Have all of these been overshadowed by a skewed eschatology?  (I have in mind our fixation with end-time scenarios--often understood as "biblical prophecy"--that hamstrings the church's ability to wrestle with the already-but-not-yet tension of the kingdom of God)."  (p. 12)

And, again, at the end of his book, Charles brings home the implications of this short-sighted eschatological viewpoint.

"If Christ is indeed returning in our lifetime, as we have been taught to fully anticipate, then it is supremely difficult--nay, nonsensical--to pursue other matters over the long term that require considerable energies, strategies, finances and personal investment.  I have in mind, for example, education or certain types of vocational careers.  With Tertullian we answer the question, What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? with a firm resolve: Well, absolutely nothing.  No wonder, then, that evangelical Protestants (for example) tend not to be found among social scientists, economists, educational theorists, political scientists, legal theorists, policy analysts, politicians (football players excepted), ethicists and so on.  Why?  Because such endeavors require a vision that takes culture seriously and views "occupying" (Jesus' word) as both a Christian mandate and a high calling.  All of these vocations require a long-term perspective, and at minimum, an interest in society."  (p. 172)

Charles' words are poignant and precise.  There is a desperate need for biblically informed and theological driven reflection on today's social issues.  The church needs to step up and provide an arena for such reflection.  Discipleship of the mind is an endeavor to be taken seriously by the evangelical church.

Donald Trump in the Bible

The rich man is wise in his own eyes,

but the poor man who has understanding

see through him.

Proverbs 28.11