The Johnson Amendment and a Diverse Church Life

Share

Yesterday at a National Day of Prayer ceremony, President Trump signed an executive order directing the government to "honor and enforce" protections for religious liberty. He also said this order would make it easier for churches and pastors to engage in politics so their free speech would not be "bullied" or "punished." These comments were in line with others Trump has made in the past about discarding the Johnson Amendment and telling the IRS to use "maximum discretion" before penalizing churches that get involved in political campaigns.

Trump signing his "religious freedom" executive order on May 4, 2017. (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

Admittedly, the actual text of the executive order does not actually change the application of the Johnson Amendment, but nonetheless, the general trajectory of this administration does seem to be to minimize or do away with it. And it's not too much of a stretch to think that Congress may act on this issue as well between the urging of Trump and the voices of some swooning conservative religious leaders. As such, Christians need to think intentionally about what such moves might actually mean for their congregations.

First, Christians need to recognize that the Johnson Amendment really does not pose a serious threat to their churches. The IRS has only investigated a few church violations of the Johnson Amendments in its history. There have been even fewer negative results as only 1 church has ever lost its tax-exempt status. One main reason for this is because the Johnson Amendment does NOT prohibit political speech from the pulpit or for pastors and ordinary Christians as Trump has often characterized it as doing. Rather, the Johnson Amendment simply prohibits any registered, tax-exempt non-profit (which many churches are) from endorsing a political candidate or participating in political campaigns of candidates (activities like donating church money to a political campaign). However, pastors and Christians are more than free to discuss political issues and positions. You can take positions on abortion, same-sex marriage, war, taxes, and other political issues from the pulpit all day long. You just can't say "this candidate is horrible" or "I endorse this candidate" or give congregants' tithe money to a campaign.

It's also important for Christians to note that the few investigations that have occurred have been opened against both conservative and liberal churches. So, when you hear Republicans like Trump depict the amendment as an attack on conservative religious values, please remember that this is simply not true. In fact, the original intent of the law was to target supposed communist funds flowing from non-profits into the campaign of Lyndon B Johnson's campaign rival.

The Johnson Amendment was proposed by then Texas Sen. Lyndon Johnson

In short, churches have little to fear from this amendment. It's unlikely an actual violation will even get investigated (especially if you don't attend a megachurch with a famous pastor), and even if your church or pastor got investigated, it's even less likely that anything will come of it. But if it did, Christians would do well to remember that this would really only impact their tax-exempt status, not their ability to gather, worship, teach, preach, evangelize, or anything else.

All that aside, Christians need to think about this from another angle, namely the role of politics from the pulpit. After all, that's really what this debate is about.

Personally, even if Trump succeeds in repealing the Johnson Amendment, I strongly believe churches should still abide by its restrictions. Here's why:

When we allow pastors to start going beyond teaching general Christian principles or worldviews and let them begin advocating for specific candidates, parties, and policies, we run the risk of doing incredible damage to the health of that congregation. Let me give you an example.

A few months ago, I visited a church where the pastor decried "liberalism" as evil and as a sin in the middle of his sermon. This immediately turned me off for several reasons. First, his usage of "liberalism" was really nothing more than a scare word as the word "liberalism" is incredibly vague. What do you mean by "liberalism"? Are we talking theological liberalism, political liberalism, economic liberalism? Each of those are very different concepts and don't always go hand in hand. The use of that phrase was not substantive but simply a way to energize the rest of the congregation, who by-and-large held to conservative theological and political views, which leads to my second concern.

My second concern with the pastor's denouncement of "liberalism" is that it only served to further the uniformity and lack of diversity within his congregation. I don't personally consider myself a "liberal" or "progressive," but I tend to be a moderate who does happen to share a number of perspectives with liberals on some issues. As I listened to that sermon, I immediately felt excluded because the sermon's assumption (at least what seemed to be communicated) was that any liberal ideas (including political ones) were sinful. As such, I was to be viewed as an outsider to faith.

Now, if I felt that way, imagine how any number of my sincere, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, Christian friends who are much more liberal than myself would have felt sitting through that sermon. That pastor might as well have said, "Your faith is wrong and invalid. You don't really love Jesus or believe the Bible. You're not welcome here unless you repent."

Take that another step further. If we start having pastors condemn or praise specific candidates or politicians (haha, I said "start," when in reality I've sat through too many such sermons already), how is that good pastoral care or good church practice when a healthy church will hopefully have members who sit on both sides of the political aisle and who will vote for different candidates. Those members with different opinions will feel uncomfortable or maybe even be driven away from the congregation.

Even worse, what if a church donated tithed money to a political campaign. If there are members of the congregation who plan on voting for an opposing candidate, do you think they want the money they gave to the church to be used for a candidate they don't support?

At this point, I can hear some Christians say, "Well, if they want to believe differently they should just find a more liberal/conservative church to attend." But this is not how it ought to be! As we look at the book of Revelation, we see a picture of the people of God united together from every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. The Kingdom of God is diverse. A few years ago, I heard a saying that aptly describes what the Church should look like: "Unity without uniformity; diversity without division."

Thankfully, many Christians agree with me that pastors should avoid becoming too political. According to Kimberly Winston of the Religious News Service, "A 2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement 'it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service,' and a 2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates." Nonetheless, according to research done by the Barna Group presented in the book UnChristian 10 years ago, one of the top perceptions of churches by those outside the church was that churches are "too political." Given the intensification and polarization of the political arena recently, I suspect that perception has not changed much in the past 10 years. It may be even worse now.

But this goes so much beyond the Johnson Amendment and politics. A few days ago, I blogged about how our lack of a corporate theology in the act of baptism reinforces homogeneous churches and potentially feeds racism in the midst of the Church. We so desperately need more diversity in our congregations!

Sadly, much of the way we teach and preach in churches is both the cause and symptom of this lack of diversity. Pastors and teachers within a church make polarizing, one-sided statements because there is no differing opinions within the congregation to put a check on them or to help those leaders think about different perspectives. At the same time, when such statements are made from positions of leadership, it also drives away any diversity that might happen to come through the door for a visit. It's an endless cycle of confirming uniformity, and this creates an echo-chamber of group-think.

So, if you are a pastor, teacher, or church leader (or even just a congregation member), please think abut your public speech within the church. How would your comments be interpreted or accepted by a Christian of a different political viewpoint, or a different race, or a different social class or country? Too much of what gets confidently declared as "truth" is actually more influenced by the micro-cultures we create within our congregation and community than it is by the Bible or God. So, whatever happens to the Johnson Amendment, let's be careful in our words and find way to increase cross-cultural dialogue and diversity within our congregations.

Share

Baptism and Racism

Share

I recently started reading Jim Wallis' newest book "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America." I'm only part way through it, but so far there has been lots of good food for thought for white Christians and white churches who often neglect issues of race in our liturgy and worship, preferring to pretend that racism is a "political issue" not a "faith issue."

However, early on, there is one quote that jumped out at me. In the opening chapter, Wallis writes:
"The political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem. The churches have too often "baptized" us into our racial divisions, instead of understanding how our authentic baptism unites us above and beyond our racial identities."

I think Wallis is onto something here. In American Christianity, particularly the white evangelical variety, we tend to preach and adhere to what Scot McKnight calls the "soterian (or 'salvation') gospel." The "gospel" that gets preached from our pulpits is that you are a sinner, Jesus died for your sins, and so you must believe these truths and put your faith in Jesus and you will be saved from hell and death. Frequently this gospel is also accompanied by a gnostic over-emphasis on heaven as the final destination of the saved, rather than an emphasis on bodily resurrection.

As McKnight and others point out, this "soterian gospel" ends up being extremely individualistic. The "Gospel" is good news for me. Jesus died for my sins. The point of Jesus' life and death was so I could get into heaven. Even within more Reformed traditions that point back to God's glory as the purpose for His actions, the center of the narrative still remains focused on God's actions for individuals.

To bring this back to Wallis' quote, if we are believing an individualized gospel, then it naturally flows that we are also practicing individualistic baptisms. In most baptism services I have seen, the focus of the moment is almost always on the personal profession of faith and the salvation of the one being baptized. Don't get me wrong, that focus is good, but it's incomplete.

Usually absent from modern baptisms is any language of being baptized into a community or of entrance into a new kingdom and people that crosses cultures, race, and language. This is unfortunate because the early church understood this concept.

Certainly, such an individualistic gospel and baptism will cause (and is causing) countless theological and practical problems for our churches, but I had never really made the connection between this watered-down baptism (pun not intended) and racial problems we face within the church. This is likely because of my own white privilege. For us white Christians, we simply don't think about race and racism enough and so it's natural never to ever bring such communal aspects into our baptismal liturgies. But, we would if we were paying attention to the Gospel found in the New Testament and to the modern realities around us.

There's good evidence to suggest that Paul's words on baptism and community in Gal. 3:26-29 were actually part of an early baptismal liturgy used during baptisms. In contrast, we reduce the baptism moment into only a celebration of that individual and their own personal salvation. But what would it look like if we used language similar to Gal 3?

"For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:26-29)

For the early church, baptism was less about a symbol of personal conversion to a religious or psychological belief. It was more about an initiation into an entirely new people, culture, and society. Being submitted under the water was not just a symbol of death to sin (as we commonly approach it). It was a ritual depicting death to one's entire old way of life, including one's cultural, racial, and social identities. All those old identities were washed away and you were raised up into Abraham's family, into the people of God. Imagine what it would look like if we recaptured that essence? What if we too disposed and repented of our racial, cultural, and national identities at baptism and allowed ourselves to truly take on a new identity in Christ?

It's no secret that, as Dr. Martin Luther King used to say, that Sunday morning is "the most segregated hour in this nation." Perhaps one reason for this is because the gospel we preach and baptize into falls short of the gospel and baptism of the New Testament. Central to the Bible's Gospel is the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the story of Israel, and that He is creating for Himself a new people drawn from every tongue, tribe, and nation.

Paul reiterates this Gospel truth in many of his writings, including when he writes in 1 Corinthians:

"For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit....But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it." (1 Cor. 12:12-13, 24-27)

Central to our baptism is the truth that all other identities are submerged beneath our identity in Christ. We are no longer defined by nationality, gender, race, language, or social status. We are all part of Christ. Perhaps if the Church in America could better grasp and preach this communal truth from both the pulpit and the baptismal, then maybe the Church could be the one to finally lead our country toward the racial equality and healing we so desperately need.

In the words of William Stringfellow, "The issue here [of racism] is not equality among human beings, but unity among human beings....The issue is baptism. The issue is the unity of all humanity wrought by God in the life and work of Christ. Baptism is the sacrament of that unity."

Share

A Few Florist Thoughts

Share

One of the news stories that broke this past week was that the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a florist who decided not to offer her services to a same-sex couple for their wedding. This case has ignited much furor in both the LGBT and evangelical worlds because it seems to place the debate as a battle between civil liberties and religious liberty. I have only slightly followed this case, but as this discussion will soon (and already has) become heated, here are a few thoughts I have to hopefully bring some nuance to this case that addresses both sides:

• If you hear conservative Christians saying this story was "buried" this week in some attempt to secretly take away religious liberty, don't believe the hype. Mainstream media did in fact cover the story (how else do you think people became aware of it?) Furthermore, if this story did not rise to the level of prominence many conservatives felt it deserved, it was likely the result of the current chaos in the Trump administration, not because of some conspiracy theory.
• It seems pretty obvious that Barronelle Stutzman (the florist) was in violation of the law. Our current laws clearly state that same-sex unions enjoy the same privileges and rights as heterosexual marriages. Furthermore, it is a crime to discriminate against a person based on either gender or sexual orientation. A business refusing to provide a service because of a person's sexual orientation is a crime. Under the eyes of the law, it is really no different from refusing to provide a person a service because of their race or ethnicity. This is why the Washington Supreme Court was unanimous--it's pretty cut and dry.

Conservative Christians at this point will say this infringes on Stutzman's religious liberty. But here are a few things to consider:

• One's religious liberty is not unlimited. The law only grants religious liberty so long as that liberty does not infringe upon the well-being of society (this is how all rights work). For instance, I cannot kill my child even if I followed a religion that said this was acceptable. In this current case, the laws and perception of our society state that such discrimination is detrimental to society. Thus, the court ruled that the practice of her religious conscience in a place of business was problematic.
• What all does religious liberty actually cover? I am not a constitutional scholar, so I'll largely leave this question open. However, it is good to note that the State is not forcing Stutzman to change her beliefs, per se. She can still worship as she pleases, she can still speak out against gay marriage, she can refuse to attend gay weeddings, etc. The court simply said that, if she is going to operate a place of business in the public sphere, then she must treat all citizens equally.
• Which leads to this last point on religious liberty. I'm not sure religious liberty extends to a business. An individual can be a "Christian," and a church congregation can be "Christian," but I'm not convinced a business can be "Christian." The reality is that when you open a business, you agree to abide by the laws and regulations affecting businesses. This include anti-discrimination statues. If you are not willing to serve certain customers because of demographics that fall under those statutes, then you probably shouldn't run that business or you should be willing to face the consequences of breaking the law. It may even be right to defy a law you see as unjust, but be truthful and don't whine or complain when you get in trouble for breaking that law. Ironically, I've seen a number of conservatives this past week say, "You're free to express your beliefs, but you're not free from the consequences of those expressions" in response to employees getting fired for taking off work on the "Day without Immigrants." Shouldn't we say the same about Stutzman? She was free to express her beliefs, but she's not free from the legal consequences of those actions.

But before my more liberal friends get to excited, I do have a few thoughts for that side as well.

• This court case has often been characterized in terms of "civil liberties." As noted above, I won't argue with the legal realities here, but there is one aspect of the LGBT movement that's never set quite well with me, and that's the comparison between LGBT rights and the racial civil rights movement. In this particular case Stutzman's actions have been compared to refusing to serve a customer because she is black. While legally speaking this is true, I think we'd be amiss if we didn't acknowledge some substantial differences. The main difference I see is that most educated Christians who don't approve of same-sex unions take issue with the ACTS of homosexuality, not the impulses or orientation itself. This is quite different from discrimination based on race which is a trait you are born with and can't escape. There is no way to not act out on being your color. Your race race remains the same regardless of your actions. Regarding being gay, even if sexual orientation is genetic, a person still has a decision about whether or not to act out on those impulses, which makes it somewhat different than racial discrimination.
• Bring this point onto the Stutzman case. What if a man who identifies as gay but chooses not to act out on those impulses (perhaps because of a religious conviction or some other reason) decided to buy flowers from Ms. Stutzman, perhaps for his mom. And let's say the florist sells him flowers and she knows he identifies as gay. But, at the same time, she refuses to offer services for a gay wedding. Is this truly discrimination against a person for being gay, or is it discrimination against the actions of homosexuality? It may be a fine line, but I think it's worth at least acknowledging.
• Additionally, I think it's easy for LGBT advocates to get overly militaristic at times (just as evangelicals often do). From some of what I have read, it seems Stutzman did attempt to offer the gay couple a referral for another florist. So, it does not seem like she is some evil lady trying to hate on "the gays." Rather, she is a person of conscience (like a significant minority of Americans) who are not comfortable with gay marriage and who view homosexuality as a sin. For many of us, we strive to love our LGBT brothers and sisters, but the liberal narratives of being anti-gay marriage as equivalent to being hateful or bigoted or uneducated are simply not fair. Those who are pro-LGBT rights would do well to remember that it has only been very recently that a majority (and only a slim majority) of Americans back their cause. Triumphalism and shouting down the opposition does nothing to draw us toward unity or truth. Not all who oppose gay marriage are hateful. Many of us continue to wrestle with the issue.
• Finally, pro-gay rights individuals should remember that (for Christians) this is a debate about sin. Is homosexuality a sin or not? This is no small question and the Church remains incredibly divided on this issue. So, for Christians who have become convicted that gay marriage is acceptable because it is something different than what the Bible addresses, be patient with the other half. Don't get angry or judgmental just because you are passionate about what you see as an issue of "justice." Remember you are asking your brothers and sisters to change their minds about sin. For any Christian, this is not a matter to be taken lightly as getting the answer wrong (in either direction) could amount to an offense against God. So, be filled with grace (both sides).

So there are my thoughts. In summary, the law seems pretty clear, but the underlying issue is not. I don't think Christians can really argue that Stutzman wasn't breaking the law (I think she probably was), but what remains open is whether those laws themselves are unjust or how people on both sides of the debate choose to relate to and characterize each other going forward.

Jail, Incarnation, and the Digital Age

Share

Every day sees new technology coming into our hands.  Moore's Law famously observes that computer processing can be expected to DOUBLE every 18 months to 2 years. The saturation of technology into our world feeds on itself to promote exponential growth. As computers get faster, they can accomplish new tasks we could never dream of previously. The current trend is for computer systems to be sewn into every fabric of our lives, sometimes quite literally. Smart watches, smart TV's, smart thermostats, self-driving cars--everything is becoming interconnected, and these trends show no signs of slowing down. As we speak, major tech companies like Google, IBM, and Facebook are rushing to perfect artificial intelligence, which will completely revolutionize the way we relate to and utilize technology.

With technology constantly invading every sector of society, it's no surprise that it's changing the way many jails and prisons operate. One particularly novel development is the advent of "video visitations." Instead of a visitor sitting down with an inmate, they stand in a booth with a phone and a video screen (or sometimes use their computer from home) and chat with the offender. Right now, about 500 jails and prisons are using this technology. (You can read more about video visitation from this NPR article).

At first glance, there seem to be many benefits to video visitations. For one, a family member can visit with the offender even if they live on the opposite side of the country. From a prison security perspective, digital visitations also prevent the exchange of contraband and can better record visits.

But some advocates have raised the ethical concern about what such visitations are doing to inmate health and to the human relationships involved. As we all know, there is a substantial emotional and mental difference between visiting someone on a screen and visiting them in-person. For instance, my brother has been out of the country for the past several months, and it has been a blessing to be able to Skype with him several times during his absence. Yet, despite the amazing capabilities of that technology, it will be 100 times better when he is home for Christmas and I can hug him and sit next to him while talking.

The importance of personal interactions is even more precious for inmates and their families. NPR quoted one mother as saying, "I can't stand it, because he's on the screen in front of me, and I can't touch him." One might ask, though, if it bothers this mother so much, why doesn't she just ask for an in-person visit. Here's the kicker. When her son's prison installed the video visitation system, part of their contract with the system's company was that they would end in-person visits and only use the video visitation system. So, even though her son is only a few hundred feet from her in the prison, all she can do is see him on a small screen and listen to his voice through a low-quality phone line.

When asked about these concerns, some detention administrators simply make the argument that this is another right that the offender forfeits when they break the law. You break the law; you pay "hard time," and sometimes this means not being able to sit face to face with your loved ones.

For Christians, this is an issue we need to think about. While the video visitation technology is an amazing development, it should only be used as a supplement to in-person visitations. Taking away flesh and blood visits strikes at the very heart of our faith. The Christian faith is relational and incarnational at its core.

In the beginning God existed not just as a single being, but as a triad of relationships. He is three-in-one; relationships have mattered since before the beginning of time. Likewise, physicality matters. God was not content to simply create a bunch of minds or a spiritual world. Rather, he took on the task of creating matter and a physical world filled with bodies of flesh and blood and bone.

Finally, as we currently walk through the season of Advent, we are reminded that relationships work best in-person. After all, Jesus did not simply offer His revelation to us as a voice from a cloud. He did not simply appear as an adult who just needed to die for our sins. Rather, "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Jesus was messily born as a tiny infant, experienced all of childhood, and walked dusty roads with friends and enemies as an adult.

Gregory of Nazianzus gave a theological reason why Jesus had to live the entirety of human life when he said, "What has not been assumed has not been healed." In other words, if we are saved through the person of Jesus, then only the parts of life that Jesus lived and experienced can be saved. Yet, it's telling that Jesus did not simply go through life stoically offering teachings. Instead, we see him caring for other lives, lifting the head of a dead little girl, touching a leper, sharing meals and partying. He lived out real-life, in-person relationships. It seems that personal human interactions were a part of life Jesus wanted to save.

When thinking about any new use of technology, people of faith need to be very wary of the possibility of dehumanization that is always lurking around. We see it in the crooked necks of our neighbors and family members glued to their phone screens. We see it in the redefinition of "friend" via social media. Massive data mining programs reduce individuals and personalities to ID numbers and a string of 0's and 1's. The siren call invites us to use technology to usurp authentic human relationships.

We also need to be wary of our natural lust for punishment and vengeance. It can be easy to dismiss the concerns by arguing that inmates and felons "don't deserve" in-person visitations. We lapse back into old arguments about how prison needs to be less comfortable and more punitive. Besides the fact that research suggests "hard time" is not effective at rehabilitation, such a mindset can actually add to the list of victims.

What often goes ignored is the negative impact on people besides the offender. What about the family and friends of the inmate? They didn't commit the crime. Is it fair or just to deprive a mother or a child of face-to-face interactions with their child or parent? Or what about those instances where a victim would like to face their offender and look them in the eyes? Will they be satisfied looking at eyes merely made of pixels?

These face-to-face interactions play a crucial role in our justice system. For both the offender and their visitors, these visitations can bring comfort, peace, understanding, grief, joy, and healing. When we strip the offender of human interaction, we also strip it away from others who may desperately want or need it too. We strip a part of their humanity. As Christians who believe in redemption, our goal for our justice system should be the rehabilitation of offenders and the healing of victims and family members. Punishment is not the Christian goal for justice.

We must seriously consider how the use of video visitation enhances or harms this goal of rehabilitation. If the incarnation of Jesus teaches us that there is something meaningful, and even holy, about interpersonal, flesh-and-blood interactions, then stripping away this dimension of human relationships will inevitably have consequences. We must ask whether taking away all in-person visitations will do more help or harm to all parties involved.

Defenses of only using video visitations are also foolish when they argue that the loss of touch and physical intimacy is simply a right that is forfeited in the course of breaking the law. For one, it naively puts too much trust in our justice system. Every defense attorney, judge, and prosecutor can point you to instances of wrongful conviction. There are many individuals sitting in prison who have been convicted of a crime they didn't commit because of some miscarriage of justice. Or what about in county jails (where such video systems are actually more likely to be used than in prison)? Most of those in county jail are awaiting a trial or plea deal and have not yet been found guilty. Is it just or humane to strip the wrongly convicted, the innocent, and those not yet guilty of the right to real human interactions?

Or should all crimes be treated equally in this manner? Even if we buy into the concept of "hard time," do a murderer and an occasional drug user both deserve the same punishment of not being able to touch or sit across from loved ones?

However, perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of all this is how dehumanization comes by way of the god of money. It's telling that the idea for going completely virtual with visitations did NOT originate with detention centers concerned about safety and prohibiting contraband. Rather, it seems to be an idea pushed by the tech companies involved. They are the ones requiring detention centers to only use their video systems. And it makes business sense--ending in-person visits means more money for the tech company.

Even worse, these tech companies invite jails and prisons to partake in this business by offering them a cut of the profits. While video-chatting at the jail is free, a family member who video-chats from home usually has to pay a fee, and this fee gets split between the tech company and the jail. In other words, the quality of human interaction is diminished, an extra barrier of cost is added, and detention centers can profit off of this. Similar to the risks involved with privately-ran prisons, the love of money and the need to make a profit can quickly eclipse human rights and dignity.

As Christians, this should alarm us. The incarnation and life of Jesus show us that relationships matter and people matter. So, whenever we see corporate profit being put above human well-being, we must stand up and speak. When the impersonal forces of money and business threaten to trump the personal dimensions of human relationships, we must object because we serve a personal, relational God.

There is something about sitting down a foot or two from another human being. When you can see, hear, touch, and smell them, something holy occurs. It's a precious space no technology can replace. I believe God designed us to crave and require such intimacy. And when that personal intimacy is removed, that's when we see people consumed by the demons in their heads and devolve in the monsters of our darker nature.

It doesn't matter who the person is--upstanding citizen or murderous felon. Jesus showed no favoritism. His incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection remind us that all are welcome to partake of redemption. So, may this Christmas season remind us that we were made for more than simply screens and phones and social media. We were made to touch and hug and love. And may we be a people of character and conscience who see trends like this and stand up for the most broken ones of our society.

God is with us, may we learn to truly be with others.

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.