The first set of ten was more background and these get a little more specific, and possibly more offensive to some. I am not hopeful anyone will follow this, but we’ve had a couple of posts recently where we discussed political things. I would love it if we stuck to these points for our discussion. Again, I realize that is a bit of a lost-cause request, but miracles happen.
Again, my comparison of what I am doing to Luther’s 95 theses is tongue-in-cheek. His confrontation of the Church instigated a reformation. Mine is more likely just to irritate some folks.
Part 1 of this series can be found here. It would probably behoove the reader to peruse it first. Later this week, or perhaps early next week, I think I have enough left for one more post. Here are theses 11-20.
(For the record, this was written before the first post was published. If it seems I am dealing with topics addressed in the first post, it is a coincidence.)
11. Christians have demonstrated a shameful and embarrassing hypocrisy in the political realm.
I had a personal blog back in 2016 and posted an article on it in which I compared two articles by Dr. James Dobson. In one (1998?), he excoriated Bill Clinton for his foibles as president and said that character was an essential part of his duties. In the next, he took the exact opposite position (the one the Democrats had taken during the Clinton impeachment trial) that personal character is not the issue for a president. “We are electing a president, not a pastor.” Pretty much everything he said in one article he countermanded in the other. Why? Now, a morally-challenged Republican was under scrutiny instead of a morally-challenged Democrat. Sorry, it was hypocrisy.
- When your moral stands change based on the political party in power, that is hypocrisy.
- When you said Bill Clinton was morally disqualified from service by his immorality but excuse Donald Trump’s equally onerous immorality, you are hypocritical.
- When you posted a relentless stream of “Obama is a Muslim” memes and other vituperative derogation on social media for 8 years and you chastise people who question Trump by saying, “He is our president, put in power by God, and we need to support him,” you have tested positive for Hypocrisy-20.
- If you call out Democrats and critics of Trump for what they say about the president, but excuse the president’s harsh words against others, you win the silver for hypocrisy. If you cheer the president for his vicious words, you win the gold.
- When you have one set of rules for Democrats and another for Republicans, it’s hypocrisy, my co-laborers in Christ.
12. If you believe one party is thoroughly good (or godly) and the other party is thoroughly bad (or ungodly), you are not paying attention.
If you criticized every single action of Obama and support every single action of Trump, you are likely not being informed by God’s word, but by partisanship. Life doesn’t work that way. By the same token, if you oppose and criticize everything Trump does, if you assume negative motives on everything, you have likely given in to partisanship.
As a NeverTrumper, I can name several things the president has done that I appreciate. I do not have to disdain every action. I did not agree with Obama’s politics, but I didn’t have to paint him as a terrible human being to accomplish that.
Don’t be driven by partisanship.
13. The GOP platform may be closer, in some ways, to a biblical worldview (especially on life and family issues) but that does not mean the GOP is a Christian institution.
There are elements of the GOP platform that align with our worldview well, but we ought to be very careful about aligning ourselves with Republicans. Political parties are, as Dobson and Thomas said, about gaining and maintaining power, not about proclaiming truth. They are about compromising to gain power and maintain it.
There may be places where the GOP and the SBC have common ground, but they are not a Christian institution. If we cast our lot in with them, we will do the compromising and we will get burned. It has never been good for the mission of the church when it too fully aligns itself with a political party or movement.
14. Binary voting is a myth.
As someone who voted third party in 2016, I was told 2 things. First, I was told that I was wasting my vote. That assumes that the purpose of voting is to choose a winner. I went to the polls knowing that the man I was voting for would not only not win, but not win a single electoral vote. But I view my vote as an expression of my morals and convictions, not just as an exercise in getting on the winning team. I voted based on my morals and convictions, and will do so again in 2020. Second, I was told that my failure to vote for a certain candidate was actually a vote for the other side. Strangely, I was told by Trumpers that I was voting for Hillary by voting third party and told by others that I was supporting Trump by not voting for Hillary. Somehow, by voting third party, I managed to vote for both Trump AND Hillary.
All of that is to say, if you want to limit yourself to voting either Democrat or Republican, feel free. I do not believe I have to do that and I do not accept that you have the authority to tell me to do so.
15. As a faithful Christian, I have every right NOT to vote.
Now I stepped in it!
I have voted in every presidential and congressional election since 1976. There have been times when I have chosen to leave blank spaces on my ballot (congressional races mostly). I have seen people express the view that Christians are required to vote. We are required by the word of God to be obedient and faithful citizens, but I know of no biblical injunction that I would be violating by simply staying home on election Tuesday.
If you want to argue this one, fine. Please don’t tell me, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” That is ridiculous. All I ask is that someone make a case from Scripture that tells me that if I have no morally acceptable choices I still have to choose one. Show me that a decision to not vote violates biblical commands.
Please, show me biblical evidence that requires me as a Christian to vote.
16. The misdeeds of the other party in no way justify or excuse misdeeds of your party.
It amazes me how often I see this idea even in theological arguments. “Well, the Calvinists started it.” Republicans justify their misdeeds because the Democrats have done worse and Democrats rationalize their sins because the Republicans did it worse – or first.
Folks, “He started it” is something a child says, not a serious theological argument.
17. The issue I have is not with thoughtful Trump voters, but with those who are blindly loyal to Trump or fawning in reverence of him.
If you look at Trump’s faults and say, “I think he’s better than the flawed Biden” that is your choice. But those who paint Trump as a servant of God, as a friend of Christ, as a warrior for the kingdom of God – that is problematic. Those who defend his every action, who explain away his faults, who paint him in messianic hews, who demand everyone support him or be cast out of fellowship, called panty-waists, attacked as liberals – it is wrong.
18. Demonizing political opponents and beatifying those we support politically are not theologically justified.
Look, people, Barack Obama was not the devil and Donald Trump is not a saint. If you dug down deep enough, there is probably something good about Hillary Clinton.
Since I announced that I wasn’t supporting Trump in 2016, I’ve had lifelong friends unfriend me on Facebook, I’ve been called liberal, been vilified, all of this because I made a choice not to vote for a political candidate. While I tried not to, I have tended to see reluctant Trump supporters as friends of Falwell or Jeffress.
Demonizing those with whom we disagree is a normal human response, but it comes from the flesh, not the Spirit. We need to fight it, not give in to it.
19. The concept that access to the halls of political power is essential for the SBC is completely without biblical warrant
It was a common criticism of Dr. Moore during the 2016 election cycle. “His criticisms of Donald Trump risk costing the SBC its friendly access to the White House.” Obviously, it is nice to have that access and if we can keep it without compromise, great! However, where is God’s word is political access and power an important virtue. Jesus and his followers never sought to curry favor with political leaders, but confronted them with truth.
20. That some of our leaders have access to Trump is good, if they are influencing him for good. I wonder if that is so.
Those with political access to the White House seem more intent on justifying him and supporting him than on confronting him. Is it controversial to say that Trump is a flawed man? I would love to know that the spiritual leaders around him were calling him to repent and obey Christ rather than filling him with messianic delusions.
I don’t know what goes on behind closed doors in the White House, but based on what I’ve seen, I have serious questions about whether access to the White House is having a spiritual impact on the president or a worldly impact on the spiritual leaders.
Coming soon, part 3 – in which I lose even more friends and influence even fewer people!
These are all right on target. Keep saying the things that we need to hear. It’s disheartening how “uncritical” our thinking has become and how hypocritical we sometimes can be without even realizing it.
I’m just gonna put this out there, and let others accuse me of being out there. For all have sinned. Keeping that in mind, no one is moral, no not one. We should already be aware that obedience to morality doesn’t justify us with God. What does? Don’t we say that God judges the heart and not the flesh? Flesh sins. Can’t escape it till death. Romans 5:20.
This is my one thesis. Trump has a heart and love of Americans not just America, but Americans, at large. Politicians have a heart for a political party.
Don’t judge a book by the cover. Read the book first.
Heart vs. Flesh.
I believe that to be the reason Jefferies and Falwell, and many other Christians support Trump. Including me. Love of the American people, the forgotten.
What was the heart of both the Clintons?
You don’t have to vote. We have rights, but we don’t have to bear arms if we don’t want to, as well. So if ya don’t vote, good. If ya do, good. Either way, i don’t care.
But if morality is the main concern, might as well never vote again.
Ed Chapman
” Trump has a heart and love of Americans not just America, but Americans, at large.”
I don’t think I could disagree more. With all sincerity and without rancor, I don’t believe Trump loves anyone but himself. At best, I think he may have affection for about 1/3 of the population. However I do believe a great many Trump supporters have the love you describe and believe Trump is the path by which they can succeed. I suspect you are one of these people. Likewise many Never-Trumpers like myself have the same love for America and Americans and believe Trump to be a danger to them.
One more point, regarding the heart. Jesus said out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. That applies to you and I, but it also applies to the president.
Well, i see Trump defending himself, and i ain’t gotta problem with that. Whether it be tweets, or directly to whomever. What he states, that the never trumpers get easily offended at, i find they misinterpret, agreeing with, oh, i don’t know, say CNN or MSNBC. They call him a racist. He’s not. But that’s what they want to see, so that’s what they see. He has to constantly defend himself by reminding people of the help he’s gotten to the blacks, Latinos, etc. But, he’s a racist? Not! But, whatever.
I didn’t mention racism. You’re OK with Trump calling his enemies human scum?
Bill,
You bet I am. Just keeping it real, keeping it real.
Do you share his opinion?
The only thing I will say about what you are saying is that NO ONE (that I can remember) within evangelicalism was saying this before Donald Trump was the nominee of the GOP>
We were passing resolutions about the importance of morality among our politicians and saying that it MATTERS. Suddenly, the aggressively immoral Donald Trump is the GOP standard-bearer and “we’ve all sinned” and “character doesn’t matter, just policy.”
That is why I call it hypocrisy. We changed our views so that we could support an immoral, ungodly, debauched candidate.
How’d JFK square with that?
First of all Ed, JFK’s was not well known by the public. Most Christians if not all voted Republican so that question doesn’t wash either. Name one SBC evangelist or pastor that stood up for JFK when his affairs were made public? I don’t know of one. The same cannot be said of Trump now can it? You alone are living proof of that.
Debbie,
I’ve seen vidoes of women in an emotional mess due to his death. Crying crying crying, as if it was their own spouse. Let’s not pretend.
Ed: There is just no reasoning with you. That was our President. He died, men, women and children cried that day and for years after. Walter Cronkite broke up for crying out loud. I was in 1st grade when it happened and even we understood that our President had been assassinated. His affairs were not publicly known until many years later by the general public.
I grew up in a devoutly Democrat supporting household (non-Christian) in Salem. Massachusetts. When JFK/RFK were assassinated, my father created a mini shrine to them in his medical office. His patients were supportive that he did so. He probably got more patients.
He was deeply and profoundly emotional about their deaths. So were many other men that were family friends. I would be cautious about saying that this was a “woman” trait. You obviously didn’t grow p in Massachusetts.
Is it possible that people haven’t changed their views as much as they have simply recognized that the moral status of our political class is devolving with every cycle to the point where the choices have become so abysmally pathetic that the only way to weed through it is to find the differences, vote for the least-worst candidate and hope for the best? I agree with you that Trump has many terrible qualities that make him repugnant. But when you start launching into generalized statements about “we” you are tossing in a large group of people who aren’t making the kind of claims you are suggesting. There’s an awful lot of speculation here about what is motivating an awful lot of people who you don’t know.
And if by “we” you mean the SBC, the SBC, as you well know, has not at any time changed its views. IF we get a “Saint” Trump resolution or a “policy not character matters” resolution passed in 2021 then I will follow you right out of the SBC door, even after having voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020.
Without a doubt, these are the best articles I have so far, read from Dave Miller. Good job! Also one of the most well-behaved, thoughtful exchanges of observations and opinions contributed by fellow commenters. (Kudos to y’all, as well)
This restores my faith that mutually respectful debate is possible, without blind loyalty and partisan attack. I do believe this can be God honoring and edifying to all hearers. Myself and others must recognize our past of ‘broad brushing, exaggerating or reflexively dismissing the opposition’s viewpoints, and commit to be ‘quick to hear …slow to speak’.
I VERY much appreciate ‘calling-out’ UNLOVING efforts to manipulate and bind the conscience of our brothers. It grieves my soul to witness the hateful slander that conservative black voters must suffer from rabid democrats of the same ethnicity, when they are accused of being ‘Sell outs’, Oreos, ‘Uncle TOMS’ or self-loathing race-traitors’.
This thread series feels especially productive, by NOT attempting to simply mimic being another well-insulated, echo chamber in which we all take turns congratulating one another’s reinforcement of jointly shared values. Each of us have blind spots in our perspective, like the door pillar in our car, obscuring the presence of a motorcycle in the adjacent left lane. We greatly benefit from our passenger’s unrestricted view of that location.
I don’t recall anyone disputing Trump’s public behavior is often; Prideful, arrogant, rude, boorish, condescending, profane, viciously insulting and juvenile. That being said, as a former voter without party loyalty, I do see as positive: That guy is the “anti-politician”. His lack of silver tongued decorum, blatant absence of socially acceptable etiquette, unvarnished rough-hewn matter-of-fact speech, is a welcome contrast to the well rehearsed, oily smooth, overly self-conscious recital of a handler’s talking points.
This shocking absence of a polished diplomatic, middle-of-the-road fence straddling communication style and mannerism, endears him with an attractive common-man
appeal. To me, he appears to be more transparent than any previous holders of the office I recall in my 59 years. Don’t we all value a person (ally or adversary) whom is consistent in speech and action, making themselves fairly easy to predict. ‘What you see, …is what you get’. I think his self confidence enables him to simply ‘be himself in front of critical public eye’.
I admit applauding his rightful criticism and contempt of the unconcealed, extreme liberal bias entrenched within the Main Stream Media peddlers. Long ago I reached the conclusion that none of the MSM (including Fox News) can be trusted to simply communicate factual events …without a thinly veiled agenda to manipulate public opinion. This is the same conduit that often gleefully reports on clergy sexual abuse, corrupt televangelists, (continued)
This is the same conduit that often gleefully reports on the decline of Christian cultural influence, and consistently runs aberrant theological opinion pieces seeking to deconstruct or ‘debunk’ essential doctrines of our faith during our revered holy days, of Easter and Christmas.
The same distorted social mirror that gives Islam a free pass, is supportive of Hollywood’s LGBTQ indoctrination of children, critical of legal firearms ownership, supports professional race-hustlers in their effort to foment irreconcilable generational wounds that allow them to continue milking that cash cow.
That same wicked source of malicious exaggeration, slander and lies that supports illegal immigration, conceals relevant demographic facts of murder suspects if an ethnic minority or Muslim extremist. Deliberately resists journalistic accountability, by concealing late-coming, reluctant retractions of inaccurate, prejudiced reporting on …their back pages.
Trump strikes me as projecting a ‘take it or leave it’ vibe, which is so very unusual (and refreshing) … in comparison to insecure, poll-obsessed, popularity seeking, political performers struggling to remain balanced, while walking across the public opinion tightrope, under the spotlight.
Personally, I believe Trump is no longer motivated by money (he’s been there, done that). That particular goal or ambition has been conquered. Donating one’s monthly salary to a charity is a rarity amongst our governing officials! In contrast to the majority of elected officials, he earned his millions before arriving to Capitol Hill. There’s less chance …of him being lured with a bribe.
Prior to his candidacy, Trump was (ironically), the recipient of much public admiration and praise amongst numerous politicians, industry leaders, Hollywood celebrities, athletes and rappers. However, once his political aspirations were announced, and his platform as the democratic opposition candidate became known, the hypocrisy of his previously adoring crowds …was revealed. (continued)
“Personally, I believe Trump is no longer motivated by money”
Dave: I agree. He is largely motivated by praise.
And while he may lack the polish of other politicians, lying, flip flopping, and making false promises are very politician-ish, and he has mastered those like, to use a phrase he is fond of, “nobody’s ever seen before”.
He is crude, but don’t mistake that for strength. Strong confident people don’t respond with insults to every jibe, insult, or challenging question. Weak, insecure people do. Bullies do.
What evangelical is actually saying “morality doesn’t matter”? I have not even heard Jeffress or Falwell Jr. say that.
I will say that The “President not a pastor” phrase has been very prevalent in the evangelical community prior to Trump.
Hi Dave: There are any number of people on this thread who have said vote the party, not the person (or words to that effect). I take that to mean it is the R that counts, not the person running. While I agree no one is specifically saying the words “morality doesn’t matter”, I think their arguments amount to the same thing. “It’s campaign promises, not character” “stop moralizing” Morality seems to matter a great deal when directed at Democrats, not so much when Republicans are in the spotlight. We aren’t allowed to judge Trump because we are also sinners, but boy we could sure judge Obama and Clinton.
I make a distinction between the Jeffress/Falwell types and others. To me (and I know this offends some) they are sellouts who put party ahead of anything else, who compromise truth for political gain. Certainly, not all who have supported Trump have done that. Not by a long shot.
You’ve probably thought of this angle, but I see some nuance on points 15 and 16. I voted in the last election for the candidate who, from my point of view, was the lesser of 2 evils, not in their personal morality, but based on the impact I thought each would have on our society, especially on the rate and depth of our spiritual and moral decline. Neither choice had much appeal, but like Gandalf said, one way seemed a little less foul. For the first time since 18, I almost didn’t vote.
2016 felt different. I and evidently many other evangelicals felt obliged to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. I felt like holding my nose when I cast my vote for the hedonistic materialist and thus, vote against the anti-christian progressive.
Your article helps identify blind spots. Since 2016, I have struggled with my attitude toward Christian leaders and some public endorsements related to the president. And I can see that my political enthusiasm in the past involved some blindness.
May God move us closer to pure and loving devotion to Him, and to His kingdom and righteousness first.
That is a reasonable way of looking at it. I know several who used a similar point of reference.
We live in difficult times.
I personally would refrain from calling anyone a “sellout”. In fact I believe Falwell, Graham, Jeffress et al. would drop Trump like a hot potato if Trump changed his positions on key issues.
One more thing. I have never expected perfection from a candidate. My favorite politician of my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, anything but a perfect man.
I want a president to be a man of basic moral character – President Trump has been (by his own boasts in his own books) a serial adulterer all of his life.
I want a president to be a truth-teller, President Trump is not.
I want a president to be reliable, and in my mind, President Trump is mentally unstable.
I want a president to care more about the country than himself – President Trump is a total narcissist.
Obviously, these are my judgments, my impressions, my opinions. That is why I make my decisions. But I say these things not to convince you, but to make a point. You do not seem to be arguing that Trump is a good man, but that the fact that is not a good man doesn’t matter.
To me, it does. He doesn’t have to be perfect, but I would like a man who cares about others, who is honest, who is faithful to his highest commitment (marriage). I voted for many flawed men for president, but I thought they had character. I even voted for Mitt Romney, though I struggled with that one. His Mormon faith bothered me, but he seemed a decent, moral man.
Trump was a bridge too far for me.
I do not need a man or woman who meets the qualifications of a pastor. I don’t need a saint. Perfection isn’t needed. But I would like someone who exhibits a level of character I have not seen in this man.
I realize that last comment will raise some hackles. Some of you see Trump completely differently. If you do, fine. Vote for him. I have read and watched and listened, and that is the opinion I’ve formed of him. I’m not going to tell you how to vote, but that’s my view and I’m voting based on that.
If you see Trump as a great man, fine. I would ask TWO things.
1. Check yourself for hypocrisy. If you had one set of standards for Clinton and Obama, and another for Trump, that is a problem.
2. Make sure you are looking at the facts, not marshaling the facts to fit your narrative.
But, you do you.
On a funny note, i saw a meme yesterday, showing Obama shaking hands with Biden. The caption was, “I endorsed you, Joe.”, for which Joe responds, “For what?
Cheap Shot!!
Dave, I feel sorry for the pain you have experienced. I know many Trump supporters. Not one of them “fawns over him” and acts like he is a perfect man sent from God to save our nation. I know several Southern Baptists in my church who did not vote for Trump. GASP. Even more shocking… I still talk to them, every Sunday even. So I don’t know who these people are that you refer to.
On the flip side, I have repeatedly been told that I have compromised my faith by voting for Trump, and have likely destroyed the Republican party for backing Trump.
C’mon man. Denying that people fawn over Trump won’t wash.
I could post picture after picture, meme after meme of Trump as America’s Moses, to lead us back to the Promised Land.
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Dave, I agree with all of your points…except the one about not voting. Maybe more about that later.You have been fair what what you have advocated for and it would be good for the church as a body if we followed it. Not only have your theses been fair, you have also been fair in how you presented them.
With that said I don’t agree with your response to Mark. He did not suggest that there was no fawning over Trump. He did say that he did not experience it.
I would agree with Mark that anti-trumpers have indeed suggested that voting for Trump was denying the faith.On balance I have had more difficult discussions with the Trump Haters than the Trump Lovers. Extreme divisive language and emotion is just not the exclusive province of the Trumpsters, not even close.
This is what happens when politics becomes your god. Everything gets passed through the lens of politics advantage and everything is subject to the partisan good.
I said in my last post that people on both sides were at fault. Did you read that?
It seems to me that you are parsing his comment to give him a pass, but he was denying the reality of what I stated, that people fawned over Trump and treated him with messianic awe. Brief perusal of social media puts the reality of that beyond question.
I saw a pic of Trump standing in front of a pic of the American Flag with Jesus standing behind him. BEHIND HIM!
Today I listened to (bits and pieces) of this revivalist video that is going around about this Bible that has been handed down through the years from Trump’s ancestors and now sits in the Oval Office, and how it is a sign of impending revival. There is hardly a day that goes by that I don’t see some sort of “Trump is God’s instrument for the salvation of America” meme.
If you vote for Trump, fine.
If you tell me he is better than Hillary or Joe, that is your call.
When we start making him out a righteous servant of God, that is where I jump.
Dave, if you are seeing that stuff, whatever. I certainly do not believe Trump is anything other than a flawed man who is president doing better than any Democrat would ever do. If your friends are idolatrous, that’s on them.
Dave,
This is what I was talking about. You got offended at something that many of us would not be. I find no problem with that. Remember my discussion years ago about the US Flag code, regarding the flag in church? Man, did that start a bunch of angry people at me?
They got offended at something i never would have. I’m a vet, whose been to church on base, both in the states, and overseas.
Who said I was offended?
Thinking something is less than desirable doesn’t equal being offended. I’ve yet to be emotional or offended in ANY comment in either of these 2 comment streams. I am stating MY opinions.
I am not even mad at Ken, whose comment is sub-Christian and exhibits the worst of political debate. If my comments seem angry, it is just because I am stating my views.
My problem so far is the continual rehashing of the 2016 election. Hillary lost the electoral college vote but had much more total votes. But, that election is ancient history. Trump did what was needed to attain the presidency. Let us look forward, not backward.
Well, I’m just saying I’ve never heard ANYONE call Trump America’s Moses.
Me neither. Cyrus, yes, many times. The chosen one, yes.
I’ve actually heard someone say that. No kidding. I also heard from the same person that President Trump is God’s man. I gently reminded them that if you say that about Trump you have to say that about Obama too.
Yeah, it’s a little difficult for me to imagine “God’s man” to be calling people who don’t support him, and more recently the FBI, “human scum”. Still waiting for any of his vocal Christian supporters call him out on that one.
Tony, some of us jokingly have. Allah.
I have a photo file of “Trump True Believers” memes that I have harvested over the past four years. Thousands of photos/memes/fawning accolades, and almost everyone of them from professing Christians on my newsfeed.
That could become gold.
I’ve wanted to gather a series of posts from Christians who say, “God put the president in office and therefore it is wrong to criticize him.” Then, the next time a Democrat is in office, see if their theology changes.
Look at the casualties of the Trump administration. War heroes, lifelong public servants with impeccable records, people wounded in the defense of our country, labeled traitors and criminals by this president and his followers. I think good and honorable people tried working for the president in the beginning, but one by one they were either fired or resigned until only yes men and women were left. This is not a man who loves Americans, but this is the man who claims that Xi and Kim Jong Un love their people.
Bill, are you talking about Lt. Col. Vindman? Please. Spare me the hero story. Lt. Gen Flynn was a hero and no Democrat cared one bit about destroying him.
As for the Ukraine ambassador, I think she was opposing Trump’s directives. If you can’t follow your new boss’s orders, resign.
Vindman, Mueller. Trump can fire who we wishes, but they were labeled traitors and criminals. That’s a big difference. The chain of command is not the highest law.
Bill, when i was active duty, the chain of command is the highest law. We know that because the enlistment contract states that we obey the orders of the officers above us, and we knew that we work for the commander in chief. His policies. Chain of command is drilled into us in boot camp. I have no problem with the name calling. We do that in secret in our minds anyway, right? Be honest.
Ed: I’m not a vet, but am I wrong that there isn’t a mechanism for bypassing the chain in some circumstances? If a female cadet is being harrassed by her superior, can she not go around him? If an illegal order is given, are you duty bound to obey it? I know the chain is strong, but it’s not inviolate.
And Mueller was not in any chain of command.
Ed, as a Vietnam era veteran I can tell you that after the My Lai massacre we were instructed that if given an unlawful order our duty was to disobey that order and report it to higher authorities until we found someone who would listen to us. I believe that is what Vindman did and he should be thanked for following his patriotic duty.
McCain, especially.
Thanks. I had forgotten about him.
I’m a vet. War hero’s, huh? The uniformed work for the man in a suit, not the other way around. We know the chain of command.
Ed, the chain of command does not support unlawful orders; thus it is not the “highest law.”
I think #17 is the one that resonates most with me.
By the way, I said this on the last thread, but I like the political posts. I appreciate discussing things where there is actually a discussion. We’re all adults.
Thanks again Dave for sharing your heart. What you have written has opened my eyes. I too feel point #17 is right on. Please keep the coming Dave. We all need this…especially now.
thanks, Jim.
Your last two posts are two of your very best. Grateful for your voice.
Thank you sir.
The problem however is when you follow a consistent anti-Trump, anti GOP rhetoric and never defend the platform of the alternative choices you simply leave the table with nothing but having further divided and confused those you disagree with. To be heard you have to explain what you are for, how your choice defines your view and prove what you claim, not just continue to berate who you are against. In many minds it seems nearly impossible to defend any parts of the platform of the Democratic Party because they have abandoned “all things moral.”
We are obligated to vote when given such a heavy responsibility and opportunity to be a part of choosing leadership for the future. To not vote is to show disdain for a system that has served our nation well for hundreds of years. To vote is to force yourself to see the reality of the political landscape we are in and help direct it in the best possible way.
Honestly, if you genuinely despise abortion and many other moral issues you are not left with much choice these days. Its a shame it is that way but that has been the choice of a sect of people who value humanism above theism.
Scott: It’s a perfectly reasonable argument. But some of us see voting for Trump as fighting evil with evil, and we won’t do it. Perhaps it’s the nature of blogs, but the reluctant Trump voters only seem to show up here. In my real life, and of course on the national stage it is the enthusiastic, back-slapping Trump supporters who seem to be at the forefront.
Wow! As I read through this post I kept thinking, this sounds as if it came out of the democrat national committee.
Which of Dave’s points do you disagree with?
Sorry, Ken, but this response is exactly what is wrong with political debate.
There is NOTHING Democratic about this. The idea that questioning the hegemony of the GOP makes me a Democrat is intellectual laziness, sinful, shameful. You refuse to engage someone who disagrees with you, but instead, you resort to a label you consider to be an insult – DEMOCRAT.
You should be ashamed of this kind of thing, but sadly, I know you will not be.
Do better, Ken.
Dave Miller:
Why should I be ashamed for speaking truth.
And, by the way, your remarks would carry more credulity if you would publish a similar critique of all of the other candidates as you are doing for Trump? I sure won’t hold my breath waiting for it.
Doing so might indicate that you may not be totally biased.
Accusing me of being intellectual laziness, sinful, shameful makes you look like a spoiled child who cannot accept anyone’s opinions but his own. You don’t know a thing about me and yet you resort to shameful name calling without any evidence.
You are constantly stating that criticism of specific persons is not desirable on your blog. I guess it is OK for you alone.
As the old saying goes, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
But you haven’t actually pointed out where David’s points are wrong. Just saying he’s giving a Democratic argument is not an argument. That doesn’t mean anything.
Ken, you are so biased and unfair that simple discussion with you is pointless. I don’t know if you are dishonest or so slanted you cannot read what I wrote clearly.
But I don’t interact with people who do not show basic good will.
If you continue, your commenting privileges will be stripped.
You have the right to YOUR opinions. You do not have the right to lie or dissemble about my opinions.
Where is your comprehensive review of the Democratic positions? You have plenty to say about Trump but have been relatively silent about Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Pelosi.
“Where is your comprehensive review of the Democratic positions? You have plenty to say about Trump but have been relatively silent about Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Pelosi.”
This is a tired argument that get trotted out regularly, but it laughable at best. Can I preach against the sin of abortion without mentioning homosexuality? Yes. Does saying I hate rainbow birthday cake ice cream mean I automatically love chocolate? No. Can I comment about a particular political bedfellow Evangelicals are particularly enthralled with without automatically supporting their opponent who is worse, and whom Evangelicals have long dismissed as a no-go? Yes.
Simply put, as frankly as I can, there is little point in trying to convince Christians of the moral ills of the Democratic Party when they have so broadly rejected them. But when you see them joining hands around a ill-suited candidate of their own party of choice, then it is worth speaking out on the matter. President Trump is new-found phenomena for the GOP. He is worth discussing the most, as there are statistically few Christians who are considering voting for his opponent.
Do better with your next argument.
You mentioned issues and not the character aspects……therefore it is not a tired argument and one you still failed to address.
Well said, Joel.
Since I know of almost NO ONE advocating for the Democratic platform on this site, I see no real need to argue against it. If people start saying that the Dem Platform represents the will of God, then I may say something.
I have stated my views on the Democratic platform and party – clearly.
The point is being purposely avoided…..most attacks are leveled at Trump’s character while avoiding character attacks against any specific Democratic person. That is the obvious difference. Person versus Policy is not the same.
Rudd: Policy aside, I would judge Democratic politician’s character basically the same as Republican politician’s character.(not counting Trump) Politicians tend to be a bit vain, with an inconsistent relationship with the truth.
Like I said, if we are discounting policy, I don’t think Democrats are any more or less virtuous than their Republican counterparts. There are outliers on both sides of course. I think we all tend to ignore the character flaws of those on our side of the political aisle.
Now, you could say that character informs policy and that’s a legitimate argument, but you specifically asked to discount policy.
Rudd, I do not know many Christian people who are enthusiastically supporting Democrats and I know of NONE who are calling Joe Biden “God’s man” or such things.
C’mon man. That nonsense is tired. There isn’t a democrat bone in my body. Bashing Democrats is lazy. I am speaking to a 98% Republican crowd asking us to review our views, NOT speaking to a bunch of Repubicans looking for cheers by slandering Democrats.
Do better.
To me the choice remains simple. I’ll vote for the presidential candidate who most closely aligns with my beliefs. That choice was simple in 2016 and will be in 2020.
Do I agree with everything about President Trump? Of course not, but Lord willing, I’ll be gladly voting for him again.
Some of my reasoning:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2020/01/accomplishments-of-president-trump.html
David R. Brumbelow
I don’t really disagree with these points.
The relationship between the Christian and the state is very difficult and in a very real way depends on the times in which one lives.
It’s going to get more interesting in the future, I predict.
Query: what will Christians do when the GOP nominates an openly homosexual man, a polygamous man, or a transgendered person who believes in a strong national defense, economic freedom, a restrained view of judicial interpretation, political and religious freedom; and the Dems nominate a woman who has been married for 40 years to the same person with a lovely family, is a member of a moderate Baptist congregation and is a elder or leader in the church, who goes on mission trips to alleviate suffering in the world, but who does not believe in a strong defense, relies more on international organizations like the UN, believes in the appointment of more activist judges, who believes in more central control of the economy, higher taxation, believes in the “right to worship” but not as strong on religious freedom in the areas of speech, education, proselytizing.
That future is coming.
Louise: If the prevailing view holds, the answer is easy. They will vote for the Republican. Remember, we are in a post-morality phase of American politics.
Would it be fair to say that your view is to look for the most personally moral candidate and vote for that person?
Or don’t vote for any candidate that is immoral?
And what is your view of what “ immoral” means, for you?
It’s a fair question, as everyone falls somewhere on the immorality scale, including me. In my opinion he is so far up (or down, however we are measuring) that he is an outlier. But my objection to him is not only morality.
Trump will be gone from office in January 2021 or January 2025 at the latest.
I’m interested in the principle, if there is one, that can be deduced from this.
Can we construct a principle that can be followed in the next election, the election after that, and the election after that?
Or is the only principle, do as you judge?
Well, I can tell you what my principle is. My ideal is someone articulate, with integrity, knowledge, strength, and intelligence. My admittedly subjective opinion is that Trump fulfills none of these. As I said, my objection is not just moral. Trump’s moral failings are certainly enough to disqualify him in my opinion, but he’s the complete anti-package. I’ll admit my standards are rather high, but we’ve seen what happens when we lower them.
Bill Mac Did you vote for Mitt Romney?
Yes
I don’t care what your beliefs are, can you make my toilet drain? Can you improve the job market?
Jimmy Carter was probably the most moral president in my life. I can’t answer for anyone prior to Johnson, really, but Carter’s morality got the nation in a huge mess, cuz he had no clue how to be a strong leader that our enemies would fear. In walks Ronald Reagan. Landslide.
Ed: You seem to be suggesting that morality is the enemy of strong leadership. Is immorality then a qualification for president? I happen to agree that Carter was not a strong leader (likewise Trump in my opinion), but I don’t think it was his morality that caused his weakness.
Also, I don’t see a lot of evidence that “our enemies fear” President Trump.
* China didn’t cave in the trade war.
* Iran hasn’t knuckled under to the “maximum pressure” campaign.
* Russia continues to occupy the Crimean Peninsula and (via puppet regimes in occupied territory) Eastern Ukraine.
* Russia also continues to work alongside Iran to prop up the Syrian regime.
* North Korea still has its nukes.
Even Syria, which the administration bombed after (among other offenses) the regime launched a chlorine-gas attack *on a hospital*, and which should therefore be the MOST afraid of the US, sure doesn’t act like it.
The regime paused for about a microsecond and went right back to committing crimes against humanity — in fact, it’s worth taking a closer look at how that went down.
We struck them on 4/7/17. On 4/10/17, Sean Spicer (the President’s spokesman) said: “If you gas a baby, if you put a barrel bomb in to innocent people… you will see a response from this president.”
And on 4/11/17, the very next day, Syria dropped some more barrel bombs.
So were they scared of President Trump? I dunno, Ed — /you/ tell /me/ if that’s how fearful people act.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-airstrikes-idUSKBN17D105
P.S. We didn’t strike them again. They continue to use barrel bombs (often) and chemical weapons (more rarely) with impunity.
Well, David, i happen to think they do, but are testing how far they can go. Just my opinion.
I mostly agree with you! I definitely think it was boundary-testing: “Sure, he /said/ he’d bomb us if we did X, but is that REALLY a red line? Let’s do a LITTLE bit of X. Ah, no response! Let’s do more.” And soon they’re back up to their usual tempo.
But here’s the thing: remember when the Obama administration laid down a red line in Syria and then — when Assad eventually crossed it — did nothing? That was an act of weakness, right?
The Trump administration laid down a red line in Syria and did nothing when it was crossed *the next day*. That, too, is an act of weakness — and the fact that Assad was /so/ quick to violate it suggests he was never really afraid. My two cents, but IDK, it seems like a solid inference.
I was in a taxi in Middle Earth, way off the beaten path in the villages. A 61 year old woman got in and found out we were Americans. She said, ‘President Trump is Putin’s joke on the world.’ In case you wondered how the rest of the world feels.
Anecdotally, I heard an IMBer tell of an indigenous person in their region express a high opinion of our president. Just saying.
You know, I’ve had the same experience. The guy loved Donald Trump. After he told me about that he went on to tell me about how Vladimir Putin actually died years ago and the KGB now has a look-alike acting as Putin. Also informed me that black people came from the curse of Ham. All in the same 5-minute conversation. So, yes, I agree there are people overseas who love Trump.
And Joe Biden appeared before the NAACP back when he was VP and told them, the Republicans want to “Put y’all in chains.”
So there’s some crazy talk.
Just to be clear, the person I wrote about was sincere in their opinion and they felt we had a strong leader. They did not get into “conspiracy theories” or otherwise bad theology. My IMBer friend was not comfortable with the conversation in that the mission is about Jesus and not the USA but the indigenous person was impressed with the USA and our leader. I meant to relate the episode as a positive event.
Anecdotally, I have spoken to indigenous people in my country of service who are mystified and horrified that America elected a man so immoral and unfit to lead. A man who has said he has done nothing to ask God forgiveness for.
Strangely, in Africa, I ran into some pastors who were big fans of Donald Trump. I deflected the topic. I was not going to discuss American politics with African pastors.
In Asia and Australia, it was just kind of a sigh and a chuckle, like the whole world was waiting for someone to deliver the punchline.
A Hobbit actually said that?
Bill,
I didn’t say that. I just believe that we vote on a candidate based on campaign promises. In addition, just because someone makes a claim against Trump, i don’t jump on the bandwagon. There had been many people who have lied about Trump, and two of them just got released from prison due to the virus. Both pertaining to a stripper. Both lawyers. If you want to believe, fine, but i don’t. Let them have their day in court. I just am not a fan of the ole moral majority from back in the day. Why? Because it exposes hypocrisy of those pushing it, revealing just how immoral the moral are. It’s the constant finger pointing. Bill,
I could see it now. Jesus calls people vipers, and the religious wish that jesus was more Christlike.
Jesus himself would be judged by the moral majority.
I’m just not liking what i see from the religious. It’s like the old saying goes, clean up your house before you worry about someone else’s.
In addition, we’ve got 1 Cor 5 that tells us that God judges those outside the church, we judge those in the church. We need to have a good reputation with them, not so much the other way around. I could go on and on, but i won’t.
No one is righteous, no not one. Grace is preached, but not practiced.
Ed Chapman
Ed: Fair enough. If morality doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter. But there was a time when we pretended it did. If we’re not pretending anymore, well that’s not a bad thing. At least we’re being honest. That’s why I told Louis we were in a post-morality phase of American politics. I can’t imagine the Republicans putting forward someone worse than Trump, but if they do (let’s say David Duke or Larry Flynt), the precedent is set: Christians must vote for them. It actually makes voting decisions much easier, we don’t have to look any deeper than campaign promises.
Bill Mac,
Why don’t you organize something to get the best moral Christian elected, then you won’t have anything to worry about. Oh, nevermind. Christians aren’t allowed, cuz it’s a different kingdom.
Mike Pence is working for the devil, right?
Gotta keep secular government to the secular people.
Then complain about their morality.
Ed Chapman
Ed: I don’t have a religious test for public office. Non-Christians can be people of integrity.
Well, Mike Pence is working for Trump. Not quite the devil, even I will admit. I’m not a fan of Pence.
Ed, like I said above: If your position is that morality doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t matter to Christians anymore, then fair enough. It makes voting easier. Now, you do claim that Trump is a Christian and so one might expect that there is just a teeny bitsy slightly higher moral bar for Christians but I could be wrong.
Or you could take the approach of Falwell and Bachmann that Trump is, despite all appearances, a good, moral, and Godly man.
Bill,
I never said that morality doesn’t matter. I’m saying that there is no one who is moral. Including you and me. Pointing fingers at other peoples moral failings is WRONG, when your moral failings are just as bad.
It reminds me of the guy Jesus talks about who said, THANK GOD I’m not like THOSE people vs. The other who couldn’t even look up, but said, HAVE MERCY ON ME, a sinner.
Who is justified?
Romans 2, also. Those who preach don’t steal, are thieves themselves.
But i also take it further. I don’t believe the accusations against Trump to begin with. I’m not of the crowd that preaches, BELIEVE ALL ACCUSERS who claim to be victims.
I see that as gossip.
In any case, if you want a moral person in office, nominate one. There never has been a moral human in all of history, so i guess you can’t vote for anyone.
What is Jimmy Carter’s sins? I know he used to be SBC, right?
Ed Chapman
Ed: So what you are saying, it seems to me, is that morality is impossible, or an illusion, since no one is moral. Isn’t that the same thing as saying morality doesn’t matter?
Billy Graham, Donald Trump, and Trump’s good friend Kim Jong Un. All immoral people. Are they the same then? As long as they promised the right political platform, you would be equally happy with any of them as leader? Policy, not character?
You hit on something that is important. Is the guy who never lies but whose policies lead to a dramatic increase in human suffering more moral than the guy who is the opposite? Bush and Obama had policies that led to the death of hundreds of thousands in north Africa and the Middle East and untold suffering among multitudes of others. Trump, tells a lot of white lies and is an insufferable narcissist but his policies haven’t come close to causing the suffering that those of his predecessors did. Who is the more moral man?
Tim: It’s an interesting point. Even Republicans are hard-pressed to defend the Iraq War now. But at the time, if you even questioned it in the mildest fashion, you were a traitor giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Is that what’s happening now?
David Light:
Good to see you join in.
I would be interested in your thoughts on my hypothetical. You can see it a couple of comments above.
I seem to recall that you are not a Christian (forgive me if I remembered incorrectly).
But I have assumed that you have a moral compass and that you use it in voting.
Do you, for yourself, in your voting, make choices based on the personal morality of the candidate? If so, what grid do you use to evaluate whether a candidate is personally moral?
Or do you make voting choices based on the policies the candidate espouses?
Would be interested in your thoughts.
Dave has said several things knowing that he would irritate people by saying them so I thought I would give it a try.
I think that Donald Trump stood up at a time of huge change in American society. The Boomers are growing older, our nation is become more diverse every day and we even elected our first black man as President. I’m not saying everyone is racists but you can’t say that that doesn’t represent change. Along with that change has come enormous changes in morality. Homosexuals are not only tolerated but celebrated. And, to make matters even worse countless peoples around the globe seem to not appreciate our efforts to police countless peoples around the globe. We very much feel that we have a target on our foreheads globally. President Trump stood up and said, ‘I will defend your way of life.’ His supporters don’t hear anything else. We have a way of life, it is changing, he wants to save it, we vote for him. It seems reasonable to me that the answer to your question is that older-white America will vote for anyone who offers to defend it.
Of coarse, I believe that President Trump is a liar. I believe that he has done more to compromise our government than any American leader in history. He only works to enrich himself and cares nothing for anyone unless they build him up. I not only believe that he will not defend your way of life but he will be its downfall. The next generation is coming. They are much less white, much less evangelical, much less like us. The mission that God has called us to is to disciple them to be lovers of Jesus Christ. NOTHING is more important than the Gospel and the political bickering is creating a huge barrier to that.
My two cents.
You do remember correctly! 🙂 So, to be brutally honest about how I vote: partisanship has a lot to do with it. I don’t think we can have a meaningful discussion unless we start by admitting that partisan identity is a hell of a drug.
I /do/ take voting seriously as a civic duty; ultimately, my vote is the answer to a question: “whose leadership would be best for the Republic?”
But that’s not purely a judgment about personal character. It’s a melange of party platform, past achievements (if an incumbent) and personal character/fitness for office.
An objective look at my voting behavior would show that I put a far higher weight on party ID than on either of the other two criteria, but also that personal character *can* count — for instance, in the 2018 primary, my high school civics teacher was running for Congress. I *absolutely* pulled the lever for him, and would have even if I were still a conservative Republican: we had /profound/ political disagreements when I was a teenager, but I was able to see up close that he’s a gentleman and a gentle man; he’s been committed to civic service for decades; he takes ideas seriously; and he understands how the sausage is made.
But rarely do we have that sort of insight into the character of an office-seeker; I’ve been voting since 2004 and in all that time, Trump is the only candidate whose personal character I *really* thought I grasped– other than my teacher, of course!
P.S. All of this applies only to general elections — primaries are totally different. But you and I both know that this was long enough already. 😀
Also, as an aside: I do still read all the candidate statements, including for minor parties and independents; lots of them are cranks or just riding a hobby horse, but if any of them seem like serious people who are fit to govern, I will at least /consider/ voting for them and very occasionally I vote for one. Likewise, if my preferred party puts forth a candidate who’s just… neither serious nor qualified, I will sometimes vote for the other party — though that’s only happened once in my voting lifetime.
As an even BIGGER aside: I’m really glad I switched to absentee voting. It used to be almost impossible to remember anything about local candidates in non-partisan races and I’d leave a lot of them blank. Now I can do my research and then vote right away, and I’m a WAY better citizen for it. If anyone reading this doesn’t vote absentee, you should switch.
… welp, just realized that I wrote a novel and might not have answered your question. Ugh. Want me to take another crack at it and just… directly address the question of how I use morality in casting my vote?
David Light:
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
I track very similarly to where you stand, but would not emphasize the partisan label as much as the principles. The party labels change over time. Take trade. Which is the party of free trade today?
I read an article a while back about candidates and morality. Will try to find and post. It’s an interesting grid that one guy developed that was thought provoking.
This was very good, Dave. I voted for Trump in 2016 and I will likely vote for him again. But I am very embarrassed by the fealty that some believers have to him. Thanks for taking a stand.
And I have to remind myself to just read the post and not the comment stream.
David Light:
Here’s the piece I mentioned.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/consequentialist-theory-voting/
Thanks, Louis!
Ha! Yeah, I voted for Trump and Hillary too!
Amazing trick.
Dave Miller for President.
Thanks, but what an awful idea.
To be fair, he didn’t say President of *what*. 😀
One of the foundation tenants of Postmodernism is irreverence. Authority is criticized from Heaven down. The second element is old paradigms give way to knowledge can only be true when filtered through social culture. It should not come as a surprise that Satan is working overtime in the church to promote and celebrate postmodernism.
Dave, I know this isn’t directly on topic, but if you all want to write about something Mohler has done that should raise the hairs on the back of our necks, it is the firing of professors that just took place.
Years ago when Mohler wanted to get rid of the Tenure clause at Southern, I personally appealed to a Trustee to not allow this to happen, stating then that it would lead to firing people over issues Mohler wanted to use, or for him simply to not renew contracts on Professors that stood up to him or disagreed with him. The trustee I spoke to said it would never happen, but it did (about 2-3 professors in the next year). Now, four professors have been fired without any given reason. Why no reason you might ask, so that they could get a severance package from Southern (which their families almost certainly need). However, this allows Mohler and Southern to not have to address the reason he fired them.
Nate: It’s probably too late. Now that Mohler has come out for Trump, I imagine even the virulent non-Calvinists will give him a pass. In perusing some of the CBN stuff, it becomes clear that patriotism=Trump.
I hear what you’re saying, but the firings have nothing to do with Trump or patriotism, perceived or otherwise.
Maybe the let some professors go because cp giving is down by more than half. The Georgia Baptist Convention is reducing its budget by 43%. Lots of bloodletting. New Orleans just announced the closure of several extension campuses. This is just the beginning. Give our leaders a break.
That might be plausible, except they were fired, not furloughed or laid off. Furthermore, as to my original post, all these men used to have Tenure before Mohler talked the Trustees into abolishing it, so if lay-offs were necessary, as unfortunate as that would be, they should have come from the adjunct profs and not ones that have been there for 20+ years.
The timing is staring you in the face. They have to cut 16 million. Maybe they had too many Hebrew professors anyway. If it wasn’t one man it would have been another. I think folks ought to give their brethren the benefit of the doubt.
If I had seen this, I would have deleted it. this is a common conspiracy theory/lie going around.
There was a clear reason given. BUDGET CUTS.
Not sure how this is a conspiracy theory, Dave. Southern did abolish Tenure about 5-6 years ago. I did speak personally with a Trustee at the time about what the fallout of that might end up being. As I replied to Dr. Terry, the Hebrew dept. certainly has not been discontinued at Southern and Russell Fuller is a preeminent Hebrew scholar and the longest tenured professor of that department at Southern. As for Dr. Cabal, Dr. Magnuson, and Dr. Orrick, perhaps their departments were discontinued, but they too are also some of the longest tenured professors on the Faculty. So, if Southern is making cuts in their departments and they are terminating their longest tenured professors, it still is something I believe needs fuller explanation.
It’s been quite a while since I’ve commented, but I really wanted to let you know, Dave, how great these articles have been. Bravo!
Nate, Baptist Press published an article today, describing how Southern Seminary was reducing its budget due to the pandemic. The article mentioned that staff and faculty positions were being reduced because some programs have been discontinued. I’m assuming there is a correlation between the terminations and the budget reductions.
Let’s see when the dust settles Dr. Terry, but Hebrew is not being discontinued and Dr. Fuller is a preeminent Hebrew professor, as you know.
The article did not mention any names. Do you know the names? Yes, if Russell Fuller was terminated, that would surprise me. Southwestern Seminary has also downsized somewhat. The administration at SWBTS discontinued the archaeology program.
Dr. Russell Fuller, Dr. Keith Magnuson, Dr. Ted Cabal, and Dr. Jim Orrick is what has been reported.
These are longtime professors who teach in different departments.
A few points:
I agree with Dave’s thesis.
And the main point of the thesis as I understand it is an argument against those who would place President Trump on a pedestal or worse, bow down to his golden image.
I voted for Trump, but I’m not under any delusion concerning his lack of moral character.
Educated voters don’t vote for candidates in this day and time because quality people won’t touch modern politics with a ten for pole. Educated voters vote based on party platform, stance on issues, history regarding court appointments…
Nobody with half a brain votes for candidates based on their personality and moral character. There are none good, no not one.
So what does a wise voter do?
Vote by party stance on the issues.
I don’t even read the names on the ballot anymore. I just push the Red button and leave. Why? Anti-abortion, anti-LGBT,, and they appointment conservative judges.
If I’m to base my vote on the moral character of the candidates I’m only left with one choice, and Dave has already mentioned it, just don’t vote.
I don’t see that as an option for me personally, as I care about my country. When I vote on issues rather than candidate, I won’t offend God.
Besides, scripture says Trump wouldn’t be in the White House unless God put him there. I believe God votes by platform in the US as well because He sure wouldn’t vote for Donald. He must have voted by platform.
Good name, Donald.?
DE: Did God then vote for the Democratic platform during the Obama years? I don’t disagree that God ordains who leads every country, but that includes the good and the bad.
Good point. My last statement was in jest. God doesn’t vote, of course. But He does put rulers in place. He put King Saul on the throne because the people asked for a king. But Saul was a miserable failure. Sometimes God gives people what they ask for, even if it’s not what’s best for them.
I believe most true Christians were appalled by the results of the previous Democratic platform which God allowed because of our negligence.
And I believe the current Republican platform is our attempt at repentance from the previous one.
Not the man, the platform.
Just an opinion.
Pastor Dave
Vote the issues
“Sometimes God gives people what they ask for, even if it’s not what’s best for them.”
Exactly!
I tend to think Trump is the Saul of our generation, not Moses or Cyrus.
Vote the issues. It’s a no brainier. Someone else can do the moralising.
Pray for president Trump’s salvation and that God will give him wisdom.
Amen. I wonder how many of his Christian detractors follow biblical mandates and pray for Trump on a regular basis. Many might pray against him, “Lord get that man out if office,” but I’d venture few pray directly for him.
Thanks, Kenneth.
Kenneth: Don’t even get me started on Trump and “the issues.”
And I’d say the Democratic platform that loaded the Federal Courts with liberal judges, cleared the way for gay marriage, and expaned abortion rights is the Saul of our generation. That’s if we’re going to stretch Biblical parallels, which we probably shouldn’t.
The United States isn’t a chosen nation. We aren’t Israel and we aren’t the church.
“The United States isn’t a chosen nation. We aren’t Israel and we aren’t the church.”
Now that we can agree on.
I dunno, Bill. I know you don’t like Trump, but you gotta admit he’s only done like… 80% as much necromancy as Saul.
[Ghostly voices whisper at the edge of hearing]
OK, /maybe/ 90%.
[Whispering intensifies]
No, I don’t believe you. Fake news.
[A television turns itself on and flips through channels until it lands on a press conference airing live from the White House]
All right, fine, yes, he DID just inform us he’s “surrounded at all times by the shades of his enemies, who he has summoned from beyond the grave to torment day and night.”
And yes, he did threaten to “do the same, or worse, to all who defy him,” and pledge to “rule forever as eternal witch-king.”
But /I/ won’t be defying him, and anyone who DOES is un-American. /Plus/, this necromancy thing is really not so bad! From the spirit’s point of view, it’s a WAY better deal than going to Hell, so really it’s an act of MERCY, which makes sense ’cause he’s the kindest and most loving man to ever occupy the White House.
And even if you don’t agree with me, you MUST admit he’s better than Obama.
“And even if you don’t agree with me, you MUST admit he’s better than Obama.”
Hi David! Must I? All I will admit is that the platform of the party that Trump recently joined, and has utterly hijacked and ruined has a number of planks that I like better than the platform of the party Obama belongs to.
D.E., On this string of comments, you have nailed it and made more sense than most, IMO. Thank you sir for your sound and reasoned arguments.
Thanks.
On a serious note: Do NOT ingest or inject Lysol or other disinfectants. You will die.
Trump has put his foot in his mouth often, but I have to admit that goes to the top of the stupid list.
The theses articles make me want to buy Dave Miller a beer. (Non-alcoholic of course, root beer if he likes)