Reconsidering Never Trump - More Reconsideration

I am updating this in light of Erick Erickson's screed of 9/21/16.

Mr. Erickson is not a very good theologian and ought to be careful how he cites Scripture.  He cites 1 Corinthians 5:11-13, and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which both consider the relationship among Christians, not Christian duties to the state, as having some impact on our association with Trump.  This simply doesn't follow.  It's bad exegesis of the text.  Then, oddly he argues too many Christians are engaging in a form of syncretism, blending their patriotism and Christianity when just moments earlier one of his arguments against Trump was that his campaign is un-American.  Huh?  He suggests there are "sparks of apostasy" among those who argue because God chose bad men to do His work, we can choose bad men to represent us in the government.  While I agree with Erickson this isn't very good argumentation (it's apples and oranges), the truth is God DID use bad men to do his will.  How is that Mr. Erickson has such a bead on God's mind that he KNOWS Trump could not possibly fit this category?  Forgetting this, how does Mr. Erickson have such prescience that he feels utterly comfortable concluding Trump will be such a disaster?  Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, my main problem with Mr. Erickson is his holier than thou attitude.  He wags his finger at any Christian who might consider voting for Trump as if it's right out of Scripture that to vote for Trump is sin.  His website posted Glenn Beck's agreement with him (odd, since Beck's a Mormon - see my arguments below about Mitt Romney).  He suggests the following: Christians are choosing to ignore it [his bad quotes to the above Scripture] because they have convinced themselves they are not electing a priest, but a President."  Yet, as noted below via link to statements by Russell Moore and Al Mohler, that is precisely true.  Moreover, his screed wholly ignores how our system of government works and the reality that our government is, after all, a secular endeavor, not a religious one.  Many of my Southern Baptist brethren, notably, Denny Burk and Russell Moore, have, likewise, made absolutely clear their utter disdain for Donald Trump.  I get it.  Trump has numerous character flaws which make him a miserable candidate.  I respect both men for their stands, even when I disagree.  Neither, however, has made the kind of bad arguments Mr. Erickson has made and neither is acting out of any sort of self-promotion.

That said, some of the arguments many NeverTrump folks are making simply don’t work.  I’ll try to engage several here.

One of the most glaringly bad arguments is the between two evils, choose neither argument (the phrase being often attributed to Charles Spurgeon – which may well be true).  Why is this such a weak argument?  It elevates principle to a place from which it offers no method to work in any realistic kind of application.  It’s a proverb, not a biblical mandate, and should be taken as such.

Let me give an example.  If I tell my 17 year old son he should abstain from sex except when married because the Bible says so, I have given him an appropriate principle which he should follow.  But to leave it there gives him no sense of why that principle matters.  Divorcing the principle from the practical fails every time.  I have to explain to him that sex before marriage could produce a child he and his girlfriend aren’t ready to have; that sex before marriage involves an emotional commitment that neither he nor she is truly cognizant exists and that will cause either or both of them to reduce sex to a purely physical involvement which it was never meant to be; that it could result in one or the other of them deciding the other didn’t meet their standard, requiring further and deeper exploration which will never satisfy.  The practical implications are that we are always choosing between two evils.  Many who say they will never vote for Trump were perfectly fine voting for Mitt Romney (read here: Mohler and Moore Seem Okay with Mitt Romney in 2012).  Yet, let’s be clear here: Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon, who holds to a theology that is absolutely antithetical to Christianity.  His theology drives people away from salvation through Christ, not toward it.  As such, Mitt Romney is therefore evil.  YES, evil.  Yet Drs. Mohler and Moore both were perfectly fine arguing things like the president isn’t supposed to be a theologian.  I agree and voted for Romney, despite the evil that is Mormonism.  I chose between the evil of Romney’s Mormonism and the evil of Obama’s utter secular faith because I wasn’t voting for someone to guide me in my faith – I was voting for someone to run the secular government.

Secondly, the NeverTrump argument misconstrues the nature of our system of government.  Our government was designed to be secular.  It was never intended to be and is not a theocracy and, moreover, doesn’t require Christian candidates. While I don’t agree with nonsensical organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which mischaracterize the First Amendment as requiring a complete divorce of religious belief from public life, there is no question that the men who wrote the Constitution intended religious belief to be adjunct to and not a direct part of governance.  Because our government is secular in its operation, Christians ought to assume the worst and expect the best of political candidates.  In other words, most of the time political candidates will not come close to passing any sort of Christian “litmus” test because they’re secular sinners.  We have absurd expectations and should stop wondering why these political candidates almost never measure up to biblical standards.  I am not arguing that we have no standards, but the system that is in place offers up who it offers up.  Each of us can and should do what we can do, but there comes a point where all we have left is our vote for President – at that point, there is an inevitability that our true choice will be limited to the Democratic and Republican candidates (no third party candidate has won the presidency since 1860 and that was the first and only time).

Third, there’s an old song by the rock band Rush called Freewill.  One of the lyrics goes like this: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.  This presents another problem for those in the NeverTrump camp.  If you decide you will not vote for Trump there are three options: vote for Hillary Clinton, vote for some third party candidate, or don’t vote.  The result of doing any one of the three if too many do so is Hillary Clinton is the next president.  Hillary Clinton is an utterly unacceptable presidential candidate for Christians for at least one simple reason: abortion.  She used to be heard saying abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”  When’s the last time you heard her say that?  2008 would be my guess.  She’s now become an unapologetic advocate for abortion at any time, for any reason, under any circumstance, for anyone, at any place.  Additionally, she lied to either Congress or the FBI (or both) about her emails, has lied about her health, and has proved she is equally and perhaps even more mendacious than her husband.  Moreover her “what difference does it make” statement to Congress in reference to the Benghazi massacre proves an arrogance and condescension of barbaric enormity. She trumps Trump for lack of character by leaps and bounds.

The NeverTrump folks will say, so what?  Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings are not a principled reason to vote for Trump.  Yet, this is precisely where our system of governance lands us – we are constantly called upon to examine both candidates and make a reasoned determination between them.  Something has to guide our effort, even if that something is a sort of bottom line pragmatism that sifts through the worst of each one and sees how much bad is left after the sifting.  If that makes you feel nauseated, I understand and agree.  However, you are placing more on our system than is reasonable or possible when you expect candidates will line up with our Christian views.  That’s not what the system was designed to do.

Fourth, the nature of our federal system inevitably created binary choices for president rather than many choices.  The original debate was how much power the national government should have: the Federalists (those who wanted more power for the national government) won out with Jefferson’s election.  Madison, who followed, was a primary architect of this view.  Ever since that time, the main argument between political candidates, particularly presidential candidates, has been about how much power the national government ought to exercise over the states or, more basically, how much power the national government should exercise, period.  Generally speaking, Democrats say more, Republicans say less.  So your only real choices are between the two major party candidates.  Recall Ross Perot’s ill-fated runs in 1992 and 1996.  He won sizable portions of the popular vote but won exactly ZERO electoral votes.  Third party candidates don’t win – your choice is Hillary or Trump.

Finally, just because you “vote your conscience” or “voted on principle” doesn’t mean you get a pass when the consequences roll in.  If you do something that helps Hillary Clinton become president, you don’t get to sit by and wash your hands of it and act like you are not complicit.  Two or three more of “The Notorious RBG” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) on the Supreme Court will result in devastating losses of free speech and freedom of religion.  That alone may be sufficient reason to consider Trump.  Moreover, there is a principle behind this – keeping freedom to “exercise” religion as a First Amendment right (not the ridiculous and unconstitutional “freedom to worship” often touted by President Obama).  Recent events in Iowa and Massachusetts presage a time when preaching the whole counsel of the Bible anywhere but at a pulpit of a church whose doors are open only to members will be illegal.  That time will come sooner rather than later under a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Vote your conscience (or don’t vote to appease your conscience) but please stop acting as if those who will vote for Trump are somehow missing something.  Maybe it’s you who needs to re-evaluate?

Ringing Hitler's Doorbell - The Troubling Truth of Euthanasia

In the past I have written about the immorality of euthanasia, (Suicide By Any Other Name ), so I won’t belabor the point.  However, I must comment on the story about a 17 year old Belgian teen who was recently euthanized.

The details are limited, but the young man apparently had a fatal diagnosis and determined, with parental consent, to have a physician kill him.

Folks, we have to get a grip here.  This is emphatically not a good idea.  The baby step from “allowing” people to kill themselves to “deciding for them” will be on a ballot near you in the very near future.

Again and again I have warned in this blog about the danger of secular dogmatism, which has no rational limits.  My fear is that as people acclimate to “assisted suicide,” especially for someone who the law deems “incompetent” (which legally typically means those of limited mental capacity, convicts, and children under 18 years old), the step of deciding that as a society we can no longer afford to keep certain people around will become ordinary.  We are already willing to wipe out anyone who is within their mother’s womb with impunity.  Why is it not logical, by secular thinking, to conclude that the old, infirm, mentally and physically disabled serve no valid function and should be eliminated?

Yes, some will laugh off such suggestions as absurd. The same way friends of mine in 2011 laughed off the idea that it might soon become illegal for me to preach the gospel freely because of the LGBT agenda.  Yet in 2016 we find agencies and laws in Iowa and Massachusetts overriding First Amendment free exercise rights in the name of tolerance and diversity for sexual liberties and demanding churches get with the program or suffer the consequences.

Where will it start?  It will start with people like my dad, who has severe dementia.  He cannot function without significant care from my sister, mother, and other care givers.  He receives an Air Force pension for his almost 30 years of service.  I’ll bet the government would love to end that payment right now.  What better way than to say, well, he’s really just taking up space and he’s not “productive” so we’re going to determine that he doesn’t get to live any longer.  Secular “reasoning” says that such a determination is perfectly acceptable.  My guess is a large percentage of Americans would likely find this reasonable.

The problem, of course, is no matter how you try to make this work, the line between who should go and who should stay will never make any true sense.  What kind of health or other problems would result in “mandatory” assisted suicide?  What about people on dialysis who need kidney transplants?  Do they get five years (or whatever time frame is deemed acceptable) then out go the lights?  What kinds of cancer patients will be terminated?  Do we only terminate adults, or do we get rid of children as well?  Who gets to make such decisions (some government board, no doubt)?  What about children with Down’s Syndrome or other such genetic mutations?  What if a parent says they’ll take responsibility?  Do we take that right away from the parent in the name of some other, allegedly greater, good?  What is that “greater good?”

While it is, of course, true that just because decisions are hard to make, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made, it’s also true some decisions shouldn’t be made.

 

We are wandering into dangerous territory here.  This notion we are in control and can actually “weed out” undesirables puts into the hands of mere humans the kind of power few of us believe is sensible, reasonable, or rationale.  Yet, we’ll embrace it as “humane” and “kind” and “the loving thing to do.”  Those, like me, who will fight against it, will be labeled as dogmatic, insensitive, ______ist, _________ist, ___________ist, and _____________ist (fill in your own words – I’ve grown awfully tired of the trite way in which such words get thrown around these days).

How far is it from one teenager in Belgium to thousands or even millions?  One opinion from the United States Supreme Court - Roe v. Wade anyone?[1] 

In a world where we are merely by products of the random waves of universal physics, chemistry and biology, then one can argue either way on this issue.  But that’s just the point – it makes no more sense to claim killing people off is better than saving them, since none of it matters anyway.  Yes, there is always the economic argument that we’re using scarce resources to help maintain these “undesirables” but who says those scarce resources will necessarily be put to better use elsewhere?  Moreover, don’t we all eventually fall into the undesirable category as we age?  Yet how many of us will simply go willingly? 

As a Christian, I see the world from a different vantage point.  People are not mere byproducts of universal activity but are creations of the very God of the universe.  Thus, all people, even those with whom I have the most bitter disagreements, matter.  Some people will tell you that Jeffery Dahmer (a villainous serial killer known for saving parts of people to eat later) converted to Christianity before he was killed in jail.  If he could be converted, then can’t anyone?  Romans Chapter 11:33 – 36 says in part that God is inscrutable and we are in no position to judge his motives.  God operates on a wholly different level, yet he has provided us sufficient insight from his word, the Bible, to let us know that we are insufficient to make these kinds of decisions about who should live and who should die. 

We wring our hands about Hitler, yet here we are on Hitler’s doorstep, ringing the doorbell asking if Dr. Mengele can come out and play.  We do not want to go there – we will regret it . . . . . . if we live long enough to regret it.

---

[1] 410 U.S. 113 (1973)