It was just over a year ago in this very forum that we
discussed the unique national mood we faced this election cycle and how we were in the midst of an historic political revolt
against the establishment – the best hope in decades for an refreshingly conservative,
anti-establishment candidate to assume the presidency.
As I lightheartedly noted at the time, the Democrat’s
options were limited to a choice between a communist outsider (Sanders) and a
criminal insider (Clinton). Whether the
nomination was honestly obtained or not – as we would come to question thanks
to Wikileaks – the Clinton machine ultimately prevailed, Sanders and his
supporters dropped their opposition and capitulated, and Democrats proceeded in
lockstep to circle their wagons around one of the most dishonest and unprincipled
presidential candidates of modern times.
Republicans would not be so easily herded… starting with
far more choices from both the establishment and anti-establishment wings of
the party. However, the field eventually
narrowed down to just three choices: Cruz,
Kasich, and Trump. In a tricky
anti-establishment year, the flamboyant and controversial Donald Trump was left
the last man standing. While perhaps not
a true conservative, nonetheless, Trump’s positions on border security and
immigration (illegal and otherwise), the economy, and his approach to international aid, trade and treaties
resonated with a constituency that had long been dismissed, if not
ignored, by the party. Those who identify with the Republicans
found themselves with the maverick Donald Trump, a highly unconventional
candidate, as their standard bearer.
The establishment itself split in their support of Trump,
with some of the most duplicitous of them (Mitt Romney comes immediately to
mind) publicly refusing to do what they had always told the dutiful
conservative voters to do – put our differences behind us and unite behind the
eventual nominee. Their disdain for the
rank and file in the party was apparently so great, their elitist sensibilities
so offended, their lust for power so threatened by this party outsider, that they
preferred a Hillary Clinton presidency over the anti-establishmentarian, drain the Washington
D.C. swamp, Donald Trump.
For the rest of us, this is one of those years where a
lot of people will ultimately hold their nose and cast their vote. Both candidates are flawed, seriously
so. Trump has already been confronted
with various inappropriate and explicit comments he had made over the years. Then
late in the campaign, he faced accusations and possible civil suits from several women relating to
alleged disgusting sexual misconduct.
For her part, Clinton has a 30 year history of scandal, including
the more recent suspicious non-prosecution of her 109 felony violations of the
Foreign Espionage Act for recklessly storing classified documents on an
unprotected private server. In addition, there is the bribery and corruption charges relating to
using donations made to The Clinton Family Foundation to buy access and favors
from the State Department. Even if these
somehow go away, you can bet that these will not be the last legal issues she
will face if elected. It is highly
likely that the historic nature of a Hillary Clinton Presidency would not be
that she would be the first woman so elected, but rather that she be the first
President facing felony charges while serving in office.
For these and other issues, many Evangelicals have been tempted
to sit this one out, to somehow keep themselves unsullied by all this
sleaze. Some cite their conscience,
saying they could not possibly vote for anyone with such low morals. Others want to send some kind of political
message to the party, to the government, to the supposed ruling class that we
need better candidates. I will say that
these “excuses”, for lack of a better term, all fall short under scrutiny,
but for now, I will save the arguing against these specific positions for
another time.
The problem is, we are uniquely a self-governing people
who have a 200+ year tradition and privilege of selecting our own leaders from
among us. Almost exactly 200 years ago, founding
father and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, wrote “Providence
has given to our people the choice of their rulers.” He
continued that, “it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (Letter to
John Murray (12 October 1816) as published in The Life of John Jay (1833) by
William Jay, Vol. 2, p. 376) Unfortunately for us, the candidates who were the
most outspoken in their Christian faith did not prevail through the primary
process and quite honestly, it is often exceedingly difficult to see much in
the way of Christ-likeness in either party’s candidate. Yet the yoke of such duty remains upon us.
Even though the system has been distorted and
abused over time, we still have a long history of free and (for the most part)
fair elections. Although many see the
future of Christian’s public participation in society increasingly at risk, we still
have the privilege and responsibility to participate in the process. If we as Christians take a pass on this
important election, we engage in dereliction of duty and basically embark in
unilateral disarmament allowing those whose ethics and worldview are not
informed by Scriptures to determine the direction of our country.
But now, we are down to just two choices – only two
candidates have any chance of becoming the next president of the United States.
So what are we, as Christians who are called to a higher
standard, to be in, but not of the world, supposed to do when our choice is
essentially limited to two candidates, both morally flawed. Since we may not personally like either of
the choices presented to us, what do we base our decision on? How are we then to decide?
In one word: Issues.
Make no mistake, the differences between the two
candidates on the issues is absolutely monumental. And only
one of them will lead us and shape the course of the debate. Only one of two very different views about the proper
scope of government and vision for the country’s future ill prevail for
the next 4 or possibly 8 years. One of
the two – Trump or Clinton – will be setting the national agenda.
As Bible translator, Theologian, and Professor of
Theology and Biblical Studies, Wayne Grudem, recently wrote:
This
election is more than a choice between two candidates. Americans are making a
choice between two very different political parties, two very different views
of government, two very different Supreme Courts, and two very different
futures for our country. One of them is much more consistent with biblical
teachings than the other.
There
are enormous differences between the candidates and the two parties,
differences that I still think have great significance. The differences concern
not only the Supreme Court but also religious freedom, abortion, gender
identity regulations, rebuilding our military, protecting us from radical
Islamic terrorism, securing our borders, supporting Israel, reducing taxes and
regulations so the economy will grow and create jobs, increasing school choice,
reforming health care, allowing wise use of all forms of energy, reducing
racial animosities and many other issues.
These differences will determine the kind of nation we leave for our children
and grandchildren.
This is a link containing Dr. Grudem’s initial
comments: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/09/trumps-moral-character-and-the-election-n2229846
I especially appreciate Grudem’s perspective, since he
clearly struggled with his response(s) toward this election over the course of three
articles written for TownHall.com. It is quite evident that he wrestled over this
'issues versus character' argument. For
the entire article, as well as links to his follow-up thinking by Grudem, click
here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
There is simply too much at stake to take a pass or register
a meaningless protest vote for a candidate equally flawed, but not facing the
level of scrutiny applied to the major candidates. If we refuse to do our part as citizens, to
weigh in on the direction of our country, we risk cutting off our nose to spite
our face. We risk losing the freedom to
meaningfully speak out in the future.
Grudem continues far more eloquently than do I, writing “If
all the Christians in the country decide not to vote for either candidate, our
rulers will then be chosen entirely by non-Christians, many of whom will
increasingly use the immense power of government to promote evil, silence
Christians, and oppose Christian values in every area of life. This is the
opposite of what Paul told us to pray for in 1 Timothy 2:2.”
“I
urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for
all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a
peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and
it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior” (1 Tim. 2:1-3).
No single factor affecting the issues we face in the coming
years so heavily swings the scales in favor of voting for Donald Trump
than the Supreme Court. The High Court has
been systematically expanding its own role in our system of government since
the 1930’s and with few exceptions, has been expanding the role of the Federal
government at the expense of individual and state’s rights. With the death of the brilliant originalist Justice
Antonin Scalia earlier this year, the Supreme Court, and therefore the future
of our country hangs in the balance by the appointment of his replacement in
the next president’s term.
In fact, given the age and relative health of most of the
current justices, many believe the next president will very likely pick 3 or 4
Justices to the High Court. Those picks
will undoubtedly affect the balance of the current court which is at present
comprised of 4 liberal judicial activists and 4 moderately conservative and/or
originalists justices. The judges so appointed
to the court will likely serve 30 to 40 years and not step down until our
grandchildren and great grandchildren are of voting age.
In a follow-up to his original article, after noting the
danger of a Clinton appointee replacing Justice Scalia, Grudem confirms my view, noting the far-reaching judicial
consequences of having still another Clinton in the White House:
A
President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four justices to the Supreme
Court, locking in a far left activist judiciary for perhaps 30 or more years.
She could also add dozens of activist judges to federal district courts and
courts of appeals, the courts where 99% of federal lawsuits are decided.
Judicial tyranny of the type we have seen when abortion rights and same-sex
marriage were forced on the nation would gain a permanent triumph.
The
nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected
representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would
dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there
would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.
For the entirety of Grudem’s most recent comments, click
here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/10/19/if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-then-vote-for-trumps-policies-n2234187
Grudem continues:
If
Trump would appoint a replacement for Scalia from his list of 11, and probably
one or two other Supreme Court justices, then we could see a 5-4 or even 6-3
majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. The results for the
nation would be overwhelmingly good. Such
a Supreme Court would finally return control of the nation to the people and
their elected representatives, removing it from dictatorial judges who
repeatedly make law from the bench.
Both candidates have told us what kind of judges they
would appoint to the courts. We must
seriously ask ourselves, “Would the Constitution, and therefore our country, be
best served if Hillary Clinton’s secular left worldview prevails on the Supreme
Court, or if Donald Trump’s list of conservative, originalist judges are picked
to serve on the Supreme Court?” “Will the
cause of Christ, or even just this nation, best flourish with judges dedicated
to studying and discerning the original intent of the text of the Constitution,
or by those who hold the Constitutional text in contempt and view the court as but
a means to promote secular humanism and socialism by imposing leftist political
agendas on an otherwise unwilling population?”
I understand this is not an easy election cycle.
God has in the
past and can in the future use flawed, even fatally so, leaders to achieve
His ultimate purposes, but according to His grace, we in this country as
self-governing citizens, also have a part to play. But if we refuse to do our part, we must consider
carefully if we are we cooperating with or opposing those purposes.
Some of you may agree, others disagree with my
conclusion. Nonetheless, what is at
stake is very clear. Either way, please
leave your comments below.
