Grudem – barbwoolard

Evangelicals find themselves facing a yuuuge moral dilemma this November. They can’t stomach the thought of voting for a Democrat, especially that woman. Yet their default candidate sends shivers up their spines every time he opens his mouth. Some are exploring third-party or write-in candidates, but others recognize the pitfalls of voting outside the two major parties, since so far no third-party candidate has ever won an election and there’s no way to be certain which major-party candidate will be more affected by third-party votes. What’s a god-fearing, self-respecting evangelical to do? For a number of them, the answer seems to be “rationalize.” Vote for someone who in every way violates your confession of faith, but construct arguments to make the wrong you’re about to do feel right.

Let’s face it: every honest person will have to admit to doing something in their life that has violated their own personal moral code. I admit I have. Sometimes the deed is the result of too much temptation and too little will power. Sometimes it’s a gross error in judgment. And sometimes we feel that we’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils, in which case we’re likely to be left feeling guilty no matter what we do because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whatever the reason for our lapse, the resulting spiritual turmoil is painful.

So how does one make peace with one’s own conscience after having done something which has grossly offended the conscience? I would argue that the only honest way to proceed is to simply own the deed: admit it, accept your human weakness, seek forgiveness from anyone who has been hurt by your action, confess and seek forgiveness from God if that is part of your belief system, and then most important of all, forgive yourself. Then go on and live your life, believing you are still a good person, not damaged goods, who is still entitled to respect and is able to make sound moral judgments in the future.

I would also argue that the most dishonest and damaging way to make peace with a troubled conscience is to construct an argument that changes wrong to right. That approach leads one deeper into self-delusion and further from any connection to or understanding of truth. People who lie to themselves no longer see the dividing line between truth and falsehood. In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” Polonius gives a long list of advice to his son Laertes, ending with the most important: “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man.” If Polonius is right, one who is honest with oneself can’t be dishonest with anyone else, isn’t it fair to say the opposite is also correct: One who is dishonest with oneself can’t possibly be honest with anyone else.

Evangelicals* (See note at end) have been doing battle with their consciences for over a year now, and that battle intensifies with every day we move closer to November 8. Some, as I mentioned before, are looking at third-party and write-in candidates; others are going to sit out this election (cowards); others are just going to swallow hard and vote for Trump because he’s the only Republican on the ballot. Then there are the most disturbing of all: the ones who are going down that dark, twisted trail of attempting to construct an argument that will morally justify their choice and quiet their consciences.

I mentioned one of those in a previous post: Wayne Grudem, whose article “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” is being read, parsed, and widely refuted. Wayne Grudem is an influential evangelical theologian, professor of Christian ethics, author, and study Bible editor. Professor Grudem rationalizes:

He [Trump] is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I’m still choking on “lacks nuance” and “I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws.” But moving on, in another passage he says,

But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

I agree with Professor Grudem that single-issue voting is narrow and disqualifies otherwise good candidates for a single disagreement. However, character is an overriding factor which encompasses who a person is, to what extent the person can be trusted, and the moral compass by which the person lives. That’s NOT the same as voting only on a candidate’s stance on immigration, guns, or abortion. There is NO way Professor Grudem can honestly reconcile his own description of Trump with his own belief system.

Here’s an Evangelical Statement of Faith, taken from the National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/. Of course, individual groups will add to or alter the list in accordance with their personal interpretations, but I think this list is a pretty basic general summary.

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no way of knowing what Donald Trump believes concerning the first three items on the list; of course I could comment, but I’ll resist. I’m most drawn to the fourth and fifth. Can anyone honestly argue that someone who attacks and vilifies women, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who were captured in war, Gold Star families, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father; who boots a mother with a crying baby from a rally; who has described his own daughter as “hot” and said he’d date her if she were not his daughter; who is being sued for child rape; who condones and incites violence; who proposes banning entire people groups from our country—that this person exudes the spirit of one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit or who is living a godly life? That’s too big a stretch for my imagination!

And how about the last item on the list: “the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Has Professor Grudem’s “flawed candidate” done a single thing to promote unity since he launched his campaign? Or has everything he has done promoted division and discord? Of course, Mr. Grudem would argue that Hillary Clinton is even more flawed in regard to Evangelical standards, but the title of his article is not “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is Better than Voting for Hillary Clinton.” It’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice,” and I think that statement cannot be argued without compromising one’s evangelical beliefs.

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Then as I was still reeling from Professor Grudem’s article, I came across another article this morning, this one written by an unnamed author, “To the ‘Never Trumper’—A Biblical Case for Trump.” The author introduces herself thus:

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself [to] ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

Her tone throughout the article is confrontational, her logic is confusing at best, and the accusations she freely hurls at Mrs. Clinton are unsupported. As the title suggests, her target audience is voters in the “Never Trump” movement, which means she’s speaking to Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump. Unlike Wayne Grudem (whose article she references at the end of her own), this writer does not deny any of the negative charges against Trump; in fact, the above quotation suggests that she agrees with those charges, as does this one:

I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. . . . He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America.

Note that she has omitted how Mr. Trump will “protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical.” Could it be because he has never told us how he intends to carry out any of his “plans”?

Going on to address the “lesser of two evils” that we’ve heard so much about, she says:

The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

Am I the only one who missed the parts of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign speeches where she says she plans to suppress our right to worship freely and to destroy our sense of decency? And I’m curious what “them” is in line 3, that says Mrs. Clinton has promised to “suppress them.”

There’s more:

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Following that statement is a list of things which Never Trumpers will have lost the right to complain about if Mrs. Clinton is elected: the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel; third-trimester abortions; future liberal supreme court rulings; your pastor being imprisoned for hate speech crimes; losing your right to bear arms and having to fret about the safety of your family.

I admit I am disturbed by third-trimester abortions, but I guess I fell asleep during the time Mrs. Clinton was talking about destroying our sense of decency, imprisoning our pastors, and taking away everyone’s guns.

And finally, here’s the wrap-up:

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

So it seems this author is admitting that Donald Trump is all of the awful things we know he is but believes Jesus can use him anyhow to protect and defend us. I’d like to know a little more about how anyone can know that Jesus is behind a political candidate, but I guess I’ll have to wait for her sequel.

Her “argument” is, of course, sprinkled liberally with cherry-picked Bible verses because no self-respecting evangelical would dare debate those. If you want to “prove” something, just pick a verse–any verse.

https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

So far, the only “moral” arguments that have been advanced in favor of electing Donald Trump as president are based solely on the facts that he’s not Hillary Clinton and he’s not a Democrat. I saw a comment on social media this week calling the Democratic Party the “Party of Satan.” And most evangelicals I know, even if they don’t use such strong language, seem to agree with that statement at least in sentiment. It goes without saying that the standard bearer of the Party of Satan must then be Satan herself, which also seems to be a widely shared sentiment among evangelicals. That neither of those judgments can be substantively supported has not deterred any of those who continue to piously proclaim them.

Okay, I get it. You will never vote for a Democrat, especially not that Democrat. If the Republican Party nominates a hamster, you will swallow hard and vote for the hamster because it’s a Republican. Whatever! But can we at least be honest? Do whatever you have to do to be at peace with your conscience. Vote for the person who in no way represents your moral code if you feel you must. But puh-leeze spare the rest of us the ridiculous mental gymnastics of trying to convince yourself that what you’re doing is in harmony with your stated beliefs. It’s not.

*Note: I belong to the Christian faith, but I am not an evangelical. I am a mainstream Protestant.

One of the weirder evenings of my life was September 26, 2008, when I joined some friends to watch the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. That doesn’t sound very weird. Getting together with friends for snacks, camaraderie, and watching an important political event sounds downright normal. The weirdness in this case arose from two facts of which I was not entirely aware before arriving at my host’s home. The first, which I’d had an inkling of but didn’t know for sure, is that I would be the only Democrat in a roomful of “enthusiastic” Republicans. The second took me completely by surprise: I was the only person in the house who went there for the purpose of listening to both candidates and drawing conclusions based on what I heard; you know, making an effort to be open minded. Silly me! I thought that’s why we were there.

I was about to find out I was in a minority of one. As soon as Barack Obama’s lips began to part, before any sound had emerged from his mouth, these people were shouting at the TV: “Idiot!!! That’s the stupidest, most ridiculous thing that’s ever been said in the history of the world!” (Or something that meant the same thing) The room was filled with scorn and derision in high decibels. When John McCain began to speak, they shouted their agreement, approval, and undying support. What their responses had in common is that they were based, in both cases, not on the words the man had just spoken but on their predetermined assessment of who the man was, and in this case on which one was the Republican and which one was the Democrat. The one person who formed a barrier between me and the TV screen was the loudest and most vocal of all, so my efforts to hear what the candidates were saying were mostly futile. My lame attempts at interjecting reason into a couple of their comments were not well received, so I just watched and looked forward to viewing the second debate in the lovely quietness of my own home.

Many times during the evening, I wanted to scream, “Can we all please just LIS-TEN?!” I didn’t. But that evening comes to mind often these days since it so perfectly exemplifies what passes for public conversation in our time. With very few exceptions, people today respond to the speaker, not to what the speaker says. The essential information is the speaker’s political party, where they fall on the conservative-liberal spectrum, their opinions and beliefs on key issues, possibly their religious affiliation, and their basic demographics. For the average listener, this information—or any portion of it—is enough to judge anything the speaker could possibly say, so there’s no need to actually hear it. This makes conversation pretty simple: I will pause while you say your words, and then I will give you the response which I already decided on as soon as I met you.

Think about it. It’s well known that millions of people in our country hate our current president. And for most people, this is not the usual disagreement over policy or disappointment that the candidate they voted for didn’t win or disapproval of the president’s general conduct. Those are some of the normal reasons for disliking a president, even strongly disliking; but the vitriol that has been spewed daily about President Obama is unprecedented. And those who do the spewing are undeterred by anything good that the president could possibly say. He has given moving tributes to fallen police officers, he has inspired us through many national tragedies, he has sung “Amazing Grace” at a televised funeral and given clear statement of his Christian faith, and the guy is a great comedian on happy occasions.

Yet nothing he says even pierces the thick shell of hatred surrounding his critics because they don’t hear a word of it. In every one of the examples I’ve listed, his haters have responded by calling him names (including the N word), declaring him a Muslim, labeling him a dismal failure (against all factual evidence), calling him the worst president ever, saying he was born in Kenya and is therefore unqualified to be president, and other things so vile I’ve chosen to dismiss them from my mind. How many people have really listened to what he has said, and how many don’t care what he says because they’ve already judged him?

One of the most baffling connections I’ve seen this campaign season, and that’s saying a lot, is the evangelical support of Donald Trump. An article that’s making the rounds this week is called “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.” The author is Wayne Grudem, an evangelical theologian, with a long list of credentials, including studies at Harvard University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and University of Cambridge; serving as a seminary professor of Christian ethics for 39 years; authoring a number of books, including a highly respected systematic theology; and acting as general editor of a study Bible. Impressive. But now he says this: “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.” Hmmmm.

He continues:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

Flaws? Not disqualifying flaws? So Professor Grudem, what on earth would you say IS a “disqualifying flaw”?

But wait, there’s more:

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made.

Careless statements? Magnified? When he called women “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals,” those were just careless statements? And they’d have been no big deal if those mean old reporters hadn’t gone and made a big fuss over them? A president, or someone running for the office, doesn’t have the luxury of making careless statements.

And to sum it all up, Grudem says:

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).

You can read more of Professor Grudem’s “analysis” here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

My point in this essay is that Barack Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” and get called a N*&&^^%, and Donald Trump can threaten to bomb the families of terrorists and insult numerous individuals and entire people groups and he just “lacks nuance” and is “flawed” but not fatally flawed. And those are the words of a leading evangelical whose life’s teaching has opposed everything Donald Trump stands for. Obviously Trump gets the pass here because he’s a Republican (the default party for evangelicals) and he’s not Hillary Clinton, not because his words are moral or make any sense. So Trump can go on saying whatever grinds his axes and proves his ignorance and still score the evangelical vote in November.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell cringe and go into damage control mode every time Trump opens his mouth yet refuse to withdraw their endorsements because he’s the Republican candidate and they’re Republicans, and that association counts more than what he says.

Even in personal conversations, the same truth applies. We paint whole categories with one brush stroke, and then we can’t hear what individuals say. Liberals are out to destroy the second amendment and confiscate everyone’s guns, they’re always playing the race card, they enable people to be lazy by handing out food stamps and welfare, they’re socialistic, they want to open our borders and jeopardize our national security, and they’re always wanting to enact policies God disapproves of. Conservatives are backward, racist, making war on women, God-flaunting, gun-toting, climate change-denying Neanderthals. And we too often respond to each other based solely on these stereotypes rather than on the actual words coming out of an individual’s mouth. I posted a joke awhile back on social media, and one of my conservative friends took it seriously. When I responded that it was meant to be humorous, my friend responded, “Lib humor.” Oh, so it might have been funny if a conservative said it, but today it’s not.

We can’t have rational, productive conversations about gun violence, abortion, public restrooms, LGBT concerns, or multiple other social issues because we’ve decided before the first word is spoken whether we agree or disagree with other speakers based on the category to which they belong. And even when we may agree with someone in another category, we find it difficult to cross lines because of group loyalty. Paul Ryan is a prime example in his love-hate relationship with the Republican presidential nominee. Voting against their own party’s nominee is hard for many people. People speak all the time about “both sides” of an issue. “All sides” would be more accurate because we all have individual opinions which don’t exactly match our category label, but the only way we’ll ever know that is to start listening to each other instead of assuming everyone in a particular category thinks exactly alike.

A counselor I once knew had a great exercise she used in couples counseling. The couple would take turns speaking and listening. The speaker would have to tell the listener something that person did which was offensive. Before the listener could respond to the charge, however, she or he had to first repeat what the speaker had said and continue repeating it whatever number of times it took for the speaker to say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I said.” The point was that you can’t respond to something if you didn’t hear it correctly; and hearing correctly requires active, attentive listening. If only we’d all start making that a habit in our daily conversations, we might find out a lot of people have important, interesting, intelligent things to say; and we might get somewhere in solving our country’s problems. It’s worth a try!