2016 Election eve thoughts - What is a follower of Christ to do?

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.