Why Trump?

Share

I think I echo the sentiments of most Americans in saying I'm ready for this election to be over. But, we still have a few more weeks to go. So, I figured I'd address one aspect of my approach to this election cycle.

Typically, I try to avoid writing or posting things that overtly favor one party or the other. I personally consider myself a moderate and am registered as an Independent. Even when I have strong opinions about particular candidates, I usually try to avoid disclosing those opinions openly. This is especially true when bringing issues of faith into politics. I understand that many Christians have different opinions and that good people come down on both sides of the spectrum. As such, voicing my support or displeasure with specific candidates is usually not productive.

For instance, during the past 2 election cycles, I might have privately told someone who I favored if they happened to ask, but I did not go about promoting or attacking particular candidates on Facebook or my blog. I didn't have pro-Romney or pro-Obama posts in 2012 despite having a preference. I've never even gotten a yard sign or bumper sticker for a campaign because I don't feel people really need to know who I'm voting for.

However, anyone who has followed my posts over the past year know that I've gone against this personal rule in strongly advocating against Trump. Several have asked me why I have spoken so harshly against Trump. Well, I really have 2 main reasons for this.

1. Trump is a unique candidate, and one that poses a risk to our democratic system

Inevitably, some readers will say that it's not fair to attack Trump and give Hillary a free pass when "she's just as bad." A few thoughts here. First, the reason I focus almost exclusively on Trump relates to my audience. I grew up in a red state, went to college in a red state, and currently live in a red state. Most of my Facebook friends would identify as conservative Christians. As such, many of my friends and contacts are contemplating voting for Trump rather than Hillary. In fact, 65-70% of evangelicals still plan on voting for Trump.

It's not that I don't think Hillary has her problems (we could certainly talk about her lack of transparency, her overly pragmatic approach to politics, her desire for repealing the Hyde Amendment, etc.), but doing so would not accomplish much as many of the same Christians defending Trump go out of their way to slam Hillary. (I also find it a bit curious when people critique me for only going after Trump yet those same people don't call out other Christians who only go after Hillary). Needless to say, there's no need to preach to the choir about Hillary's faults, but there is a need to get people to admit the depth of Trump's faults.

Second, I really am not convinced it's fair to compare Trump and Hillary. It's like comparing apples and oranges (no comment on who is the orange). Truthfully, I don't see Hillary as fundamentally different from most presidential candidates that have come before. Most prior candidates have been opportunists, have lied to get votes, and have been involved in scandals. One difference is that she has been in public office for longer than most, giving more time for political scandals to come up and more time for the negative narratives and rumors of her opponents to take root.

Furthermore, much of the "Hillary-hate" and fear-mongering being floated out there consists of the exact same charges pronounced 8 years ago about Obama ("He's going to trash the economy," "He's going to take away all our guns," "Abortions will skyrocket," "He's going to declare open season on Christians," etc.). Yet, most of these fears never came to fruition. Some were simply false (the economy has recovered steadily, people own more guns than ever before, and abortions are at their lowest levels since Roe v. Wade). Many attacks also never came true because a President is not responsible for everything that happens in our country and is not all-powerful (for instance, they still have to work within the law and work with Congress). Needless to say, when I hear many of these same charges 8 years later I don't take them too seriously.

In short, I do think Clinton is a seriously flawed candidate, but I don't see her as "evil" or an existential threat to America or as something substantially different from countless candidates and Presidents before her.

However, I do view Trump as something different, and I don't simply mean that he's an outsider to politics (we've had those candidates before). I mean that the way he talks and behaves, the people he energizes, and the ideas he floats out there are dangerous. It's his boasting about sexual assault (and his supporters who incidentally support rape culture by defending him). It's the support he gets from groups like the KKK. It's the chilling ways in which he denounces free press and gets followers at his rallies to follow suit (I recently heard a Trump rally on the radio chanting "CNN sucks" and could not escape how eerily these chants resembled the chants of mobs following dictators throughout history.) It's how he feeds the masses' appetite for circumventing due process and promises to jail his political opponents like a third-world dictator if he wins. It's how he regularly spits upon democratic values and human rights. It's how he has claimed the military will obey his orders even when asked to do something illegal. It's how he talks about undermining a peaceful transition of power post-election and claims the election is rigged (but only when he is losing). And finally, it's how he normalizes lying and routinely creates his own reality when the facts are against him while a societal culture that also ignores facts and votes on pure emotion and rage.

These things truly do set him off in a league of his own, and it's a scary league. I've never felt a need to publicly denounce the political candidate I'm voting against, but Trump's gross immorality on multiple fronts, his lack of concern for Christian values, his ridiculous policy ideas, coupled with his disdain for democratic values and authoritarian tendencies simply cross the threshold where I feel a moral obligation to take a stand against him. Again, that's not to say other candidates are perfect or praiseworthy, but I see Trump as unique. I have still refrained from endorsing any other candidate or from publicly indicating who I am voting for (or if I'll vote at all), but I feel I must be public about my disapproval of this one campaign.

BUT...

2. My main concern is really with what Christian support for Trump says about the American Church

This is really my main reason for speaking out publicly. If it was just that Trump had gotten the Republican nomination, I may have had a few posts about him, but I might still largely stick to my public neutrality about political candidates. However, what has really concerned me about this candidate is the high number of Christians who have so willingly thrown their support behind him.

Before I go further on this point, it should be noted that I do make a distinction between core Trump supporters and those Christians who presently feel forced to vote for him (despite disliking him) simply because they are convinced "Hillary is worse" or because the fear of a liberal Supreme Court. I realize many Christians feel they have no other option. But, what really shocked me was how many Christians started supporting him back when there were other choices.

For instance, I posted this on Facebook over a year ago when the Republican primaries were still in their early stages:

https://www.facebook.com/micah.titterington/posts/803752807546

I felt free at that stage to comment on Trump because I thought for sure Republicans (and Christians) would reject such an immoral and outlandish choice. For me, it was more of a comment on a phenomenon than a comment on an actual, serious political candidate.

But I was wrong.

Now here we are, and to those Christians who were early Trump-supporters we have now added many more Christians who are reluctant supporters. Again, about 70% of white evangelicals still plan to vote for Trump (although it's interesting to note the number of pastors voting for Trump is significantly lower).

My concern with the vast Christian (and specifically white evangelical) support for Trump is three-fold.

First, it seems this support for Trump stems from several idols American Christians have served.

One such idol is political power. By confusing the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of America, many American Christians have become concerned that losing power or influence in Washington is an abomination. We fear it and so we fight violently against it. I suspect this idol is at the heart of arguments over the need to get conservative Supreme Court justices. But since when has God needed a conservative Court or President to do His will in the world? For that matter, since when was God a conservative (or a liberal)? While we may prefer a certain ideology in the White House or in the Courts, the truth is God is bigger than any human ideology or philosophy. At some point we need to ask how much compromise on our Christian values is too much just for the sake of gaining worldly power and influence. Ironically, we when worship political power, it's then that the powers take advantage of us and offer us nothing meaningful in return.

Another idol we seem to have served is the marriage of the Republican party and platform with evangelical Christianity. For several decades now, religious conservatives and evangelicals have aligned themselves with the Republican party in an alliance known as "the Religious Right." This alliance has primarily centered on the key issues of abortion and sexual ethics, namely opposing same-sex marriage.

However, this alliance became too close-knit and resulted in evangelicals confusing "conservative values" with "biblical values." Suddenly, you have Christians advocating for politically conservative ideas and baptizing them as biblical. But when you step back, many of these conservative values really have no better biblical backing than their liberal counterparts.

Flash forward to today, and this marriage between the Republican party and white evangelicals is so strong that many evangelicals practically consider it heresy to even contemplate voting for a Democrat or liberal. To call another Christian a "liberal" is intended as an insult and to question their faithfulness. (I should note here that the same can also apply to progressive Christians attacking conservatives, although evangelicals have traditionally wedded themselves to Republicans). But as alluded to above, God is not a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties hold bits of the truth. Both conservatives and liberals have policies that resonate with what Jesus taught, and both have policies Christians should denounce. Christians should never be considered a "reliable voting block" for either party.

Yet since this marriage exists, many Christians, particularly middle-aged and older ones (as many Millennials evangelicals are eschewing this mentality), feel compelled to vote for Trump. They've been conditioned to believe that liberal values are anathema or a betrayal of their faith in a way that conservative values are not. They've been trained by years of voting Republican that to vote Democrat is to vote against their faith and that only a Republican ticket is able to carry a Christian platform. Likewise, the two-party system of American politics have persuaded them that to vote 3rd party or to abstain is to "waste a vote," or worse, to vote for the enemy. But when we buy into this idol of Republican ideologies, we allow American politics to co-opt and corrupt our faith.

One final idol I see is America itself, and perhaps even democracy itself. "Make America Great Again" has been the mantra of the Trump campaign, but one wonders at what expense? What are we willing to sacrifice to make America "great again"? Are we willing to treat other nationalities as second-class human beings (if that)? Are we willing to promote torture and war? The fact is that America is a great place to live, but she is not holy. She is not God's chosen nation or people. Even democracy itself, while certainly my preferred form of government, is not inerrant or divine. After all, I suspect we won't be voting on who should be King at the end of the age. We shouldn't idolize "making America great again" if it comes at the cost of making the Church sick again.

But thankfully, as one of my former professors, Myles Werntz, pointed out, our glorified image of America is being shattered by this election. We've witnessed how nasty people on both sides can be. We've seen how sometimes our electoral system fails us. We've watched as the masses nominated the two most unpopular candidates in modern history. And we've observed countless people, including many Christians, back the anti-democratic, authoritarian rhetoric of Trump. Even I have been shocked over the past year at how much we actually look like other troubled nations in the world. We might think we are above violence and giving into the voices of oppression, hatred, and authoritarianism, but we aren't.

However, as Werntz points out, this can actually be a good thing. For when our idols get smashed, we are more likely to turn to the real thing.

Second, I'm concerned about how support for Trump will create deeper divides within the Church.

Of course there are always divisions between Christians who disagree about policies and who to vote for. However, this is not my biggest concern. I hope that our friendships and faith are strong enough to overcome these partisan differences. I know a number of people that plan on voting for Trump next month, but I hope we are still able to speak after the election.

Rather, my concern relates to the diversity within the church and how Trump's campaign is decidedly anti-diversity. As Christians, our primary allegiance belongs to the Kingdom of God, which is a multi-national, multi-ethnic reality. As I've written about before, citizenship in God's Kingdom means I, as a Christian, may have more in common with an Iranian or Iraqi or Mexican than with my next-door neighbor. The blood of Christ is stronger than nationality.

Contrast that with Trump's nationalistic, exclusivist rhetoric. He has instilled fear of Mexicans and Arabs. He has insulted the black community. He has retweeted KKK leaders and been endorsed by KKK leaders. He promotes policies that treat non-Americans as less deserving of human rights and dignity. Furthermore, his speeches have incited the worst kind of violence and rhetoric from his most ardent followers.

Think about this in light of the broader Church. Although I mentioned earlier that many "Christians" are voting for Trump, it's really just white Christians who will be voting for Trump. When you ask Hispanic Christians or Black Protestants about Trump, most of them strongly oppose him. Let's widen that even further. How do you think our brothers and sisters in Mexico, or Syria, or China, or Iran feel about us voting for Trump? If the majority of world leaders (excluding tyrants like Putin) look down on and mock Trump, I doubt many foreign believers think highly of him.

The fact that Christian support for Trump is mostly a white phenomenon should give us pause. It's most certainly not because all other races or nationalities are idiots who can't see the light (such a response would most certainly be racist). Perhaps we white Christians should pay a bit more heed to our brothers and sisters of color.

In other words, a second reason I vocally oppose Trump is because I fear Christian support of his candidacy will imply that the Church is racist, or that only white Christians matter. As Christians, is this really the message that we want to send?

Third, I have concerns with support for Trump because of how it will (and is) impacting the Church's reputation

Several years ago, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons published a book entitled UnChristian. In it they detailed how non-Christians in America predominantly described Christians in un-Christlike terms. Among the primary adjectives used were "judgmental," "antihomosexual," "hypocritical," and "too political." The Church already had an image problem long before this election.

Now certainly, we should not expect the world to always give us favorable reviews. Indeed, if the world is never critical we probably have a different problem. Jesus did tell us to expect persecution.

But at the same time, the early church was respected by outsiders for many things. Pagans didn't understand it and thought it was foolish, but they did admire Christian chastity. When plagues ravaged the Roman Empire and only Christians remained to help the sick, this drew admiration from non-believers, even if such actions were seen as suicidal and stupid. Or if we look at Jesus, his compassion and mercy drew large crowds. So while the Church will inevitably be misunderstood and opposed, the Church should be seen as attractive and praiseworthy by outsiders as well (1 Pet. 2:11-12).

One particular verse that has lodged in my brain this election cycle has been 1 Cor. 5:1. Here, Paul calls out the Corinthians for approving or ignoring an incestuous relationship in their midst. In response, Paul says this act is a double tragedy because it is an "immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles." It's one thing for Christians to sin, but it's especially egregious when that failing is recognized as evil by those who do not even know Christ.

This is what I see in our current election. Almost no one, Republican or Democrat, approves of the things Trump has said and done. Many of the things Trump has done or is alleged of doing (sexual assault, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, lying, defrauding workers, etc.) are things that even non-Christians almost universally condemn. And yet, we have many Christians willing to vote for this man, minimizing and ignoring these behaviors, and sometimes even arguing he is a "moral choice."

Here is my concern. When the Church weds itself to a political ideology and feel a duty to vote for that party's candidate, and when that candidate spews immorality from just about every pore of his being, how can the Church claim any moral authority? Look at some of the many hateful, disgusting, immoral things Trump has said that I've compiled; how can we vote FOR him? After all, we don't simply vote against a person, but are also voting for someone. The world looks at the church and laughs cynically:

"If you claim to be 'pro-life,' how can you support a candidate who never talks about abortion, is willing to kill the families of terrorists, approves of torture, and who will leave desperate refugees to rot and bleed to death?"

"If you claim to be for family values and against sexual sins, why do you endorse a sexually promiscuous candidate who has boasted of sexually assaulting women? You realize he once boasted about not taking care of his kids, right? The Church as pro-family values? Yeah right!"

"All your talk about morals, character, and righteousness is just a load of crap. All the church really cares about is political power."

"Did you see that another pastor endorsed and posed with Trump? Don't pastors usually preach on Sundays against everything Trump stands for?"

"Oh sure, you Christians say the Church is for everyone, but it definitely seems like the Church only cares about you if you're a white, middle class or wealthy American."

And on and on the inconsistencies come.

I've repeatedly asked pro-Trump Christians, "At what point does Trump become unacceptable? What moral failing makes him unelectable in your view?" Sadly, I have not heard a satisfactory answer here. If anyone answers, they usually just say: "If he were running against a different candidate," "If he changed his policy statements or Supreme Court promises," or "If he did what Hillary has done." But these are all lacking. They all point the finger elsewhere and ignore Trump's character. And for Christians, this should alarm us.

Again--and I can't stress this enough--I am NOT saying that rejecting Trump means voting for Hillary. I understand many Christians feel Hillary is also morally intolerable. However, there is no objective way to say that Trump is morally superior. Every single moral criticism of Clinton also sticks to Trump, and often with more force. If we must reject Clinton on moral grounds, then we better do the same with Trump, regardless of what he promises us. Anything less is hypocrisy. The faithful Christian response to facing two evils has always been to creatively and subversively choose a third option.

You can make an argument that engaging in politics will always involve some level of compromise (one reason why the Anabaptist tradition often eschews politics altogether), but at some point we must face the reality that too much compromise jeopardizes the identity and authority of the Church.

The current acquiescence of white evangelicals to American partisan politics is even more embarrassing given that Mormons (a tradition viewed as heretical in traditional Christian theology) seem poised to give an Independent candidate--Evan McMullin--the top vote in Utah. What's happening in Utah shows what politics can be when people of faith choose to stand up for their consciences against a system where they feel comfortable with neither side.

Sadly, it's a Christian heresy taking the moral high ground rather than evangelical Christians who are supposed to have a better concept of Jesus. Christians are called to a counter-cultural politic that challenges the politics of our society. We are to be committed first and foremost to faithfulness to God in all matters. If we feel neither major party represents our consciences and convictions, then the task is to create an alternative, not simply bow before the powers and hope for minimal damage.

But we have compromised and acquiesced. Polls have even come out showing that white evangelicals are MORE likely than non-religious voters to ignore and excuse immorality in political candidates. The facts are there. We are doing irreparable damage to the image and integrity of the Church. And this breaks my heart.

In summary, my concern is less a political one than a religious one. What happens after the election? If we sully our vote by marrying it to Trump and to a morally compromised Republican party (or Democratic party), what will that say about us as Christians and about the Church going forward? How will the world accept our preaching and teaching about morality and character if we sacrifice all that for the sake of political power and expediency? For me, I care a heck of a lot more for the Church than I do for my country because it's the Church, not the U.S.A, that's the bride of Christ.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there you have it. There's my confession. I hate feeling the need to post about Trump in this election year--and part of this compulsion is probably a weakness on my part--but I truly do see great harm in this candidacy that I cannot attribute to any other candidacy (Republican or Democrat) in my life. And while I have concerns about how irrational Trump-support can be and how Trump poses a likely threat to our country, the PRIMARY concern I have with Christians voting for or supporting Trump is the long-term damage it is doing to the Church.

I don't have a particular stake in either political party and I don't care who a person votes for beyond Trump, but I do feel an obligation to defend the Church. This is what Paul, Peter, and other apostles did. They called the Church to repent of her deficiencies and to "come out" of the world. It's a shame when the Bride of Christ blemishes herself with other lovers. And that is why I have been speaking out.

Trump in his own words

Share

Some states began early voting in the past week. In light of this, I am making my final comments about Trump's candidacy. I apologize for those who have been offended by my anti-Trump posts or who think I should have kept my mouth shut, but as I have explained elsewhere, my concern is over the integrity of the church. In particular, what happens to our moral authority when we throw our political support behind a candidate even non-believers quickly identify as a uniquely immoral option?

But today, I'm not going to really give my opinion on how you should vote. Rather, I'll just give you Trump's own words. Ultimately, I have no control over how you vote. And ordinarily, I don't care whether you vote Republican, Democrat, 3rd party, or not at all. Christians will come down on all sides.

However, if you are thinking about voting for Trump, here is what I would ask. Don't divorce your faith from your politics. Don't compartmentalize and create a separate realm for faith and one for "political realism." Don't rush to point out things Hillary has said (I'm not asking you to defend or vote for Hillary). Rather, with your faith in view, read through the Republican candidates words (some recent, some older) and simply ask how you will reconcile these things with your vote for Trump. Maybe you can, or maybe these words offer some cognitive dissonance.

A few notes, I tried to stick with direct quotes of Trump, not hearsay from third parties. I also am not masking over any language (so fair warning, there is lots of vulgar, innappropriate language you probably don't want your kids reading). I figured if we are contemplating a vote for him we cannot hid behind a shield of ignorance or naivete. Now, I'm shutting up. Here's the Republican candidate:


"I am not sure I have [ever asked God’s for forgiveness]. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."

"You know, it doesn't really matter what [the media] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."


"All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me - consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected”.


“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller.” In The Art of the Deal


In 2011, Trump called a female attorney who asked to take a break to breastfeed “disgusting.”


To female contestant on The Apprentice: “It must be a pretty picture. You dropping to your knees”.


“Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly .”


About Carly Fiorina: "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"


To acquantaince AJ Benza: “A.J., any girl you have, I can take from you if I want. You’re full of shit. So any girl you have, I can take. That I guarantee. That was proven before.”


“The early victories by women on The Apprentice were to a very large extent dependent on their sex appeal.”


“I think [attorney] Gloria [Alllred] would be very very impressed with [my penis].”


“[Women,] you have to treat ‘em like shit.”


“A [woman] who is very flat-chested is very hard to be a 10 [out of 10].”


“[I would’ve slept with Princess Diana] without hesitation...she had the height, she had the beauty, she had the skin….She was crazy, but these are minor details.”


“If you’re looking for a rocket scientist, don’t tune in tonight, but if you’re looking for a really beautiful woman, you should watch.” [About his Miss Universe pageant]


“[I’m going to make] bathing suits to be smaller and the heels to be higher.” [After purchasing the Miss USA pageant]


“The boob job is terrible — they look like two light posts coming out of a body.” [About Carmen Electra]


“[I want more kids with Melania] ‘Cause I like kids. I mean, I won’t do anything to take care of them. I’ll supply funds and she’ll take care of the kids. It’s not like I’m gonna be walking the kids down Central Park.”


"It’s true you have better hair than I do. But I get more pussy than you do.” [To journalist Tucker Carlson]


“I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world [of STD’s]. It is a dangerous world out there — it’s scary, like Vietnam. Sort of like the Vietnam era. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave solider...Although it’s better than Vietnam.”


“[Women who see me] will walk up, and they’ll flip their top, and they’ll flip their panties.”


“I’ll go backstage before a [beauty pageant] show and everyone is getting dressed and ready and everything else. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant, and therefore I’m inspecting it. They’re standing there with no clothes. Is everybody okay? And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.” (On “The Howard Stern Show”)

“The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day.”


“[McCain’s] not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you."


“I am actually humble. I think I’m much more humble than you would understand.” (On ‘60 Minutes’)


“Don’t tell me it doesn’t work — torture works...If it doesn’t work they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing.” He has also pledged to “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”


Lesley Stahl: “You’re religious?”
Trump: “Yeah, [I’m] religious. Hey, I won the evangelicals. The evangelicals--”
Stahl: “That doesn’t mean...”
Trump: “--well, I think it means a lot.”


“Now the poor guy, you ought to see the guy.” [While making mocking gestures of a reporter with a congenital disability.]


"I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I've created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I've had tremendous success. I think I've done a lot."


Howard Stern: By the way, your daughter [Ivanka]. Can I say this? A piece of ass.
Trump: Yeah.


"[My favorite line in Pulp Fiction is] when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch, be cool.’ I love those lines."


“I think apologizing’s a great thing, but you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever wrong.”

"For many years I've said that if someone screws you, screw them back...When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously as you can. Like it says in the Bible, an eye for an eye."

"I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again." (Trump's response when asked about 2 of his supporters who attacked a homeless Mexican man)

"I figure [repealing restrictions on churches enddorsing political candidates] is probably, maybe the only way I'm going to get into heaven, so I better do a good job."

"The beauty of me is that I'm very rich."

"I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I'm more honest and my women are more beautiful."

"The point is that you can't be too greedy."

"The look obviously matters. Like you wouldn't have your job if you weren't beautiful." (To a female reporter)

"I've always said, 'If you need Viagra, you're probably with the wrong girl.'"

"I would bomb the shit out of [ISIS.] I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up every single inch, there would be nothing left. And you know what? We'll get Exxon to come in there, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new...and I'll take the oil."

"We need to knock the hell [out of ISIS]...We're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families."

"[Military personnel] won't refuse [to carry out illegal actions I order.] They're not going to refuse me. Believe me...If I say to do it, they're going to do it."

Trump: "You know, and I moved on her. She was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed, I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married...And I moved on her very heavily, in fact I took her out furniture shopping...I said, 'I'll show you some nice furniture." I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her; she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.

Billy Bush: "Sheesh, your girl's hot as shit" [referring to Arianne Zucker]

Trump: "Whoa, whoa!" 

Bush: "Yes, the Donald has scored."

Trump: "Look at you, you are a pussy....I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful-- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Whatever you want. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Bush: "Yeah those legs, all I can see is those legs."

Trump: "Oh, it looks good...Oh, nice legs, huh?

*This list does not include many of the countless degrading remarks Trump has made about many women (such as Rosie O'Donnell, Heidi Cruz, Kristen Stewart, Arianna Huffington, Sarah Jessica Parker, Bette Midler, Kim Kardashian, Alicia Machado, and countless others.

A Christian Politic- Pt. 3

Share

If you're reading this, thanks for your endurance. If you missed the first two entries in this blog series, check out the previous two entries which set the stage for this final post. In Part 1, I laid out some of the basic underlying theology of my political views, namely my focus on the Kingdom of God as revealed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. In Part 2, I attempted to critique the American Christian tendency of compartmentalizing faith and politics into separate realms. In that post I tried to demonstrate that our faith should impact all aspects of life, and therefore can be applied to all political issues, including those not typically thought as "religious" issues.

That leads to today's final post. As I mentioned at the end of Part 2, one of the concerns of applying faith uniformly to all political issues is that faith might be easily co-opted by political ideologies. Another concern I'll identify now is that such a tactic also opens up the potential for abuse of faith, particularly on the part of religious leaders and pastors. Or conversely, how can we prevent faith from abusing our political systems and creating an oppressive "theocracy"?  If our faith is to impact our political views, how can we practically mix faith and politics without poisoning either of these two realms?

Before offering some suggestions to help navigate these difficult waters, I think it's important to emphasize one point that could easily get lost. When I refer to "a Christian politic" I am not naively assuming following this will mean all Christians will come to the same political conclusions. In fact, far from it. The truth is every Christian's political conclusions are heavily informed by other forces besides just their faith. For instance, a Christian in a rural setting and one in an urban setting will likely see the same issue very differently. Likewise, an Asian Christian, a Black Christian, and a White Christian will also likely come to different conclusions. Similarly, Christians will settle on different political ideas due to different experiences, education levels, and access to facts.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in some cases it can be a good thing. Often, a single political policy or law will not be equally beneficial in every place. For example, a law that works well and promotes justice in New York City may not be very effective or just in small town America. Furthermore, if Christians always came to the exact same conclusions this could be a recipe for disastrous group-think.

As such, a "Christian politic" is not so much about coming to the exact same conclusions as it is about having common ground in the process. It's about ensuring we as Christians seek a consistency in what we advocate. It's about coming together around Scripture to seek policies, laws, and candidates that most closely approximate the ethics of the Kingdom of God while simultaneously remembering that no earthly government will replace or realize God's Kingdom.

With those considerations in mind, here are several practical suggestions for how we might live out a Christian politic:

1) We must live out our politics in community

While America is inherently an individualistic culture, the culture of the New Testament was extremely communal. Additionally, the nature of the church should drive Christians to recognize the importance of community. The church is a communal body, and likewise a Christian politic should be communal in nature. This means a few things.

First, we cannot arrive at political decisions in isolation from others. Dialogue is essential. If humans are damaged creations, then no single one of us has perfect insight. We need to hear the voices of others around us and need to be corrected by others. As I addressed above, we all come from different backgrounds and will draw different conclusions about specific policies. In order to seek the best options for our specific community we need to learn the practice of listening to others.

Second, the Bible's view of the end of the age gives us a picture of the type of community the church is called to be. In Revelation, we get a beautiful depiction of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue standing before the throne of God as the people of God. If we try to live out this eschatalogical reality in the present, then our politics must leave room for diversity. This is particularly a struggle for white Christians. It's way too easy to listen to political rhetoric that is one-sided or only favors a particular race. However, as Christians we must fight this temptation and create space for listening to viewpoints that are different than our own. For white Christians, this means listening to black, Arab, and Hispanic/Latin@ voices. A truly Christian politic must reflect input from the full diversity of God's Kingdom.

Finally, a communal politic means we recognize the need for the common good. My politics cannot be just about my own personal good. Neither can it just be about the good of Christians alone. Rather, a Christian ethic calls me to care for my neighbor, even at my own expense. Not only is the process of discovering a Christian politic a communal one, but the end result is also communal in nature.

2) A Christian politic must be grounded in humility

If we take seriously the message of the cross discussed in Part 1, then we will recognize that a Christian ethic must be dominated by a radical humility. Much of this echoes point one above. Christians engaging in politics should not be proud or arrogant. We are quick to admit that we are not God, and therefore we might be wrong. Unlike the self-righteous rantings of both the political Right and Left, Christians must stand ready to learn and be corrected. We are also ready to compromise on personal preferences for the well-being of the wider community when necessary. If we follow a man who became nothing on the cross for the sake of enemies, then we too should practice humility and self-sacrifice in our political endeavors.

3) A Christian politic must be committed to free-will and non-coercion

As one studies early Christianity from the New Testament era through the first several centuries, it become clear that Christianity was at its best before it came into political power. After Constantine legalized Christianity and after Christianity became the official religion of the empire, so much of the true power of Christianity was lost. When people were forced to become Christians, Christianity became hollowed out and even committed gross atrocities and crimes (the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch hunts, opposing science and learning, etc.)

In contrast, many Christians throughout history, particularly the Baptists and Anabaptists, have advocated for religious liberty and free consciences. "A coerced faith is no faith at all," they have said. This principle is especially helpful in our current conversation.

First, this concept means that the goal of a Christian politic is NOT theocracy. The goal is not to establish a "Christian nation" or to have a "Christian" government. History has shown time and again that such tight equivalencies between religion and state only lead to oppression. Rather, our faith should inform our decisions, but also allow room for the free practice of other religious opinions.

This also means Christians should advocate for the religious liberty of all religions, not just their own. One of the travesties of most current discussions about "religious freedom" is that Christians seem preoccupied with the supposed "persecution" of Christians, but rarely raise their voices against the very real discrimination against other faiths, such as Islam.

This principle also suggests that Christians should be cautious when it comes to "legislating morality." Yes, it is good to seek Christian values in policies and law. However--and this goes back to my first point--such policies should be made in conversation with the wider community (including non-Christian voices) and should always seek the common good.

4) Christians, especially leaders, should give priority to general values above specific policies

This is perhaps the most important point of this post. As I alluded to in Part 2, the Bible does not comment directly on most political issues. Rather, we must look at the story of the Bible, study its original context, and draw out principles that can guide our current debates.

It would be nice if this process were easy and straightforward, but it's usually not for the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this post. For instance, in the immigration debate, what Biblical principles do we look at? And, how do we best apply those principles? One principle could be that we need to have compassion on our neighbors. Another principle could be that we should "seek the welfare of the city" in which we live. However, what does this mean practically? Does having compassion mean we allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and establish a better life than the dangerous one they had? Or does "seeking the welfare of the city" mean we should send illegal immigrants back home because failing to enforce immigration laws opens the door for drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, or diseases to come into our country and hurt our fellow citizens?

These are tough questions, and I frequently see Christians come to very different conclusions on the matter and get angry with each other. However, it seems to me that most of these Christians debating each other have not stopped to have a meaningful conversation about the underlying values driving their policies. That is putting the cart before the horse. Before we can discuss what specific policies we should advocate for as Christians, we as Christians need to have more meaningful discussions about what values and principles we can agree on.

This fourth suggestion is especially important for pastors and Christian leaders. Some pastors get criticized for being "too political" in their preaching. I think this is a bit misleading. The truth is that Christianity is a political faith. Jesus was crucified by Rome for a political crime--proclaiming to be a King. So, I don't think the problem is that some sermons are "political."

Rather, I think the problem is that such sermons are political in the wrong kind of way. Namely, such sermons go beyond advocating for common principles and values from the Bible all Christians can agree upon to advocating for (or against) specific candidates or policies. They become partisan. For instance, I have heard way too many preachers over the past 8 years blast Obama and his policies in sermons. This is a dangerous strategy.

Going beyond promoting values to promoting specific political agendas or persons is damaging in several ways. First, it falsely connects those policies or candidates to having faith. As such, it can imply that if you don't agree with this particular political stance that you are sub-Christian (or maybe non-Christian). But that is simply not true. In the case of pastors who criticize Obama explicitly, what does that say to members of the congregation who voted for or who support Obama, perhaps on equally Christian grounds? Bringing such specifics into the sermon can easily abuse the spiritual authority given to pastors and church leaders and drive a wedge between the pastor and certain members of the congregation.

That being said, there will be times when church leaders need to become more specific in their political preaching. For instance, pastors in Nazi Germany most certainly should have spoken out against Hitler and the Holocaust. Pastors during the civil rights era in the South should have stood up against racism and Jim Crowe laws. However, how does one know when it's acceptable to preach directly about specific policies, laws, or people?

This is a tricky question--and one I can't answer completely--but here are a few thoughts. First, the issue-at-stake must be a severe injustice, particularly injustices that are costing lives. Second, the values at play should be indisputable. In other words, the specific cause must relate directly to a certain Christian value, and that value should be accepted by Christians throughout history and in the present. Third, such decisions should preference the voices of the oppressed. If we are going to speak out to something specifically, we should choose to speak on behalf of the oppressed, not the powerful, as they are the ones with no voice. Finally, such decisions to speak on specific issues should only be made after much prayer and fasting. They should not be made hastily.

In general, though, pastors and church leaders should stick with preaching the values that are common to all Christians. They should leave room for those values to be applied differently by different Christians, and should leave room for dialogue and free will. Incidentally, when we preach about Christian political values and get congregations to abide by those, then the policies usually have a way of working themselves out.

As an example, since I am currently not serving in a leadership role in a church, I have made it no secret that I strongly oppose the candidacy of Donald Trump (although I have also been careful not to publicly disclose who I am voting for or if I will be voting at all). However, if I were currently serving as a pastor, I would be more reserved in condemning Trump specifically for several reasons. First, I know a number of Christians who plan on voting for Trump for one reason or another and I don't want to make them feel excluded from our community. Second, I recognize that such Christians are often trying to apply their own Christian principles, but are simply applying them differently than myself. Finally, I don't want to imply that a vote for Trump will throw into question a person's salvation or Christian faith. Therefore, I would choose to speak more generally about Christian principles all Christians should agree on that incidentally challenge Trump as well--compassion for the poor, love for enemies, humility, sexual purity, honesty, hospitality for foreigners, etc.

None of this excludes ever talking about specifics. In fact, we must talk about specific policies at some point. However, we should only do so through dialogue within a community and only after we have examined the Christian principles that will guide those policies. Specific policies also should arise from the community and not unilaterally from church leaders or pastors.

5) Read the Bible and listen to the Spirit

Ok, I know I said point 4 was the most important point, but it's actually this one. Gotcha! The truth is, a Christian politic can only be accomplished when we are reading the same story of Scripture and when we are listening to the same Spirit. Yes, it's important to undertake this task in community. Yes, it's important to have humility and allow freedom of choice. Yes, it's important to focus first and foremost on guiding values before policies. However, none of this matters if we are not engaging the story of Scripture which forms those values. None of this matters unless we listen to the Spirit of God who binds together the church in love and unity.

----------------------------------------
Engaging in political discussions is a difficult endeavor. It can easily go wrong in so many ways. People get so worked up over political matters and debates and will even cease speaking to each other because of politics. That is why politics (in addition to religion and sex) often is taken off the table for ordinary conversation.

But we can't escape politics. We live in a democracy and are impacted by politics every day whether we choose to vote or not. If you do vote, you are forced to make decisions about what you value, who should represent you, and what laws you'd like to see. Even if you don't vote, you likely have opinions on political matters, whether those be economics, immigration, foreign policy, taxes, welfare, or the weather (just kidding on that last one).

As such, Christians have a responsibility to think (and talk) about political matters. It's not a matter of if you'll be political, but of how you will be political. But for a Christian, that "how" matters quite a bit. The Gospel is not just a belief, it is a way of life. As such, the way we live, including the way we live politically, is a reflection of our faithfulness to Christ.

Developing a Christian politic takes much careful work. We must mine our theology for values that can inform our politics. We must resist the urge to compartmentalize our lives into sacred vs. secular. And we must approach political decisions with great humility and in dialogue with a Spirit-filled community of faith rooted in Scripture.

I hope these past several posts have been helpful to you in this election year. I'm sure I'm off on some points, but that's the purpose of dialogue. Maybe these posts have given you some ideas to incorporate into your own life and practices. Maybe they've just given you insight into where I am coming from when I post about political issues. If nothing else, I hope they will allow us as Christians to have better conversations with each other and to develop healthier political views that can perhaps shape our culture into something beautiful, just, and compassionate.