Two recent articles that attempt to explain why evangelical Christians would vote for President Trump in the 2020 elections have caught my attention -- Andrew Walker's "Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump" and John Fea's response in "The Problem with the Reluctant Trump Voter: A Response to Andrew Walker's National Review Essay." Walker is from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Fea is from Messiah College. They are from different theological stripes, and see most every issue from those stripes. One is apparently a "reluctant Trump" voter and the latter is an anti-Trump voter. The arguments seem to be focused on the person of Trump and his morality (or lack thereof) and the extent of progressivism in the Democratic Party among the candidates now running. How about "in spite of" Trump voting?
I did not cast my vote in the 2016 election for Trump. Neither did I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Nor did I cast my vote for any Green Party candidate or any other write-ins. People would say I am a "disengaged" voter, that I wasted an opportunity to exercise my freedom as an American voter. Perhaps. I am also a white, evangelical male, who attends an Anabaptist-Wesleyan church (Brethren in Christ) but who has also been an orthodox Presbyterian as well as a Reformed Baptist in my personal and ministerial career. It wasn't that I could not make up my theological mind, but rather that I sought to follow God's direction in my life and ministry through the years, and that direction led me to seemingly diverse theological and ministerial positions as well as training. So, it would not be surprising to say that I disagree with Walker as well as with Fea on a number of points.
I seek to be a biblical Christian. That means that I do not blindly follow the Religious Right or the Moral Majority or the Anabaptist counter cultural "upside down" kingdom model either. I vote, when I vote, on informed moral, cosmological or world-and-life viewpoint grounds. I am first of all a citizen of heaven through allegiance to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. I am an "alien" to the citizenry of any world order, including America. I love my country, no doubt, but I am not dependent on my country and its political woes or suppositions to determine my destiny. I obey my governmental leaders according to the precepts of Romans 13 in the Bible. I am not blind to their prideful, often ostentatious, lies and subterfuges and moral misgivings.
As with other evangelical believers, I believe abortion on demand is a horrific tragedy and a Holocaust of mega-proportions. But I also believe and know that no Supreme Court decision, nor a pro-life President, nor a Republican Congress can ultimately stop the practice or the inane thinking that the child in the womb is not a person in his or her own right. I remember the Christian Jimmy Carter as President as one of the most moral, yet probably most ineffective, President we ever had. Where are the Abraham Lincoln's of today? I have been part of an activist pro-life group in upstate New York when I pastored a church in Schenectady, NY, but also sought to pray for and discuss the issues with the Planned Parenthood president, a move that my pro-life brothers and sisters saw as tyranny of the worst sort. All people everywhere need the Lord, no matter their party or abortion affiliations.
So, I guess I am an "in spite of" Christian in America. Will I vote for Donald Trump in 2020? That will be up to prayerful direction sought from God and the Bible, not from the political ranker from either party. The bigger issue is not how moral or immoral a candidate for President is, but rather does his or her worldview comport with a biblically defined and crafted viewpoint? If neither does, then neither gets my vote. Many would disagree with me or say I am "compromised" in my thinking. So be it. The larger question always for me is the biblical salvation status of Donald Trump or the Democratic contenders for that party. At the end of the day, that is what will really matter, and should matter to us all.
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Saturday, February 15, 2020
The Partisan Divide and Its Recovery
I am a subscriber to Imprimis, a conservative newsletter published by Hillsdale College, a privately funded college with traditional Christian values and insights. In the latest issue of Imprimis, Christopher Caldwell, Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute Author, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, talks about the deepening partisan divide in this country (See https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/). In that article, Caldwell says that "American society today is divided by party and by ideology in a way it has perhaps not been since the Civil War." He then goes on to point to "strands" that have produced such a divide, including the Vietnam War, role of women, and the "emergency" Civil Rights Law of 1964 that has gone way off the original mark and is now used for every divide between Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Christian and non-Christian that we see today. For me to even quote or refer to Imprimis puts me in the "bigot" category, seemingly unable to carry on a civil discussion with people of opposing viewpoints.
I must, however, take exception to this caricature (or even reality to some). In my ongoing role as a retired pastor and a current church health consultant (for NCDAmerica), I am fully aware of several realities in this partisan divide that Caldwell and other conservatives portray. It is always easier to critique and analyze the problems rather than to do the hard work of curing or alleviating the problems. It is not that I disagree with the analysis, but I am reminded of taking a graduate course in a highly recognized seminary where I raised the theological question -- "If our understanding of the Bible is so 'air tight' why don't those on the other side ever deal with these arguments?" The answer from our professor was simple--"They never read our journals, never digest our books and never engage with us in any way." That is part of our problem today, isn't it? We don't really read or talk with one another, especially on opposing sides of the aisle. Caldwell and others like him are hardly ever read, and when they are read, they are dismissed as bigots, hate mongers, and so forth. So, my first point is, Why can't we honestly read one another? Why can't we really "hear" one another, not merely listen?
I am a Baby Boomer, a child of the late 1940s, a teenager of the 1960s, having seen America transform from the values of the 1950s to the radical ideas and concepts and precepts of the 1960s and later years. I have ministered through the raucous 1970s, the "me" generation of the 1980s, the economic tensions of the 1990s and the "new age" of the 2000s. I have spoken to and with people from every generation in those years. While perspectives and assumptions have radically changed, people hardly ever change. Fears of the 1960s are fears of the 2000s. Technological advancements have separated, not united us, and the beast we have launched with the internet of the 1970s has become all consuming and threatens to devour its children. It is not that we should go backwards, but are we really prepared to go forwards? The greatest needs of economic and job security, fairness, safety for us and our children, peace at home and abroad are still there, still behind all the rhetoric. It is not a matter of "civil rights," but rather a matter of human rights, of Constitutional rights, of being able to live and speak and exist freely as a society, not merely as isolated individuals.
So, here's a radical thought--get to know and listen to your neighbors, especially the ones who disagree with you, but have the same needs as you do. Engage in civil discussion, even when it seems hopelessly insane to do so. Reject the anger, vitriol, hatred, narrowness that often defines people. Agree to disagree. Prove that you are no bigot, no hate monger, but rather a follower of Jesus Christ who believes in his principles. Take the admonition of Paul to Timothy seriously -- "Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands." ( 2 Timothy 2:23-26. The Message)
I must, however, take exception to this caricature (or even reality to some). In my ongoing role as a retired pastor and a current church health consultant (for NCDAmerica), I am fully aware of several realities in this partisan divide that Caldwell and other conservatives portray. It is always easier to critique and analyze the problems rather than to do the hard work of curing or alleviating the problems. It is not that I disagree with the analysis, but I am reminded of taking a graduate course in a highly recognized seminary where I raised the theological question -- "If our understanding of the Bible is so 'air tight' why don't those on the other side ever deal with these arguments?" The answer from our professor was simple--"They never read our journals, never digest our books and never engage with us in any way." That is part of our problem today, isn't it? We don't really read or talk with one another, especially on opposing sides of the aisle. Caldwell and others like him are hardly ever read, and when they are read, they are dismissed as bigots, hate mongers, and so forth. So, my first point is, Why can't we honestly read one another? Why can't we really "hear" one another, not merely listen?
I am a Baby Boomer, a child of the late 1940s, a teenager of the 1960s, having seen America transform from the values of the 1950s to the radical ideas and concepts and precepts of the 1960s and later years. I have ministered through the raucous 1970s, the "me" generation of the 1980s, the economic tensions of the 1990s and the "new age" of the 2000s. I have spoken to and with people from every generation in those years. While perspectives and assumptions have radically changed, people hardly ever change. Fears of the 1960s are fears of the 2000s. Technological advancements have separated, not united us, and the beast we have launched with the internet of the 1970s has become all consuming and threatens to devour its children. It is not that we should go backwards, but are we really prepared to go forwards? The greatest needs of economic and job security, fairness, safety for us and our children, peace at home and abroad are still there, still behind all the rhetoric. It is not a matter of "civil rights," but rather a matter of human rights, of Constitutional rights, of being able to live and speak and exist freely as a society, not merely as isolated individuals.
So, here's a radical thought--get to know and listen to your neighbors, especially the ones who disagree with you, but have the same needs as you do. Engage in civil discussion, even when it seems hopelessly insane to do so. Reject the anger, vitriol, hatred, narrowness that often defines people. Agree to disagree. Prove that you are no bigot, no hate monger, but rather a follower of Jesus Christ who believes in his principles. Take the admonition of Paul to Timothy seriously -- "Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands." ( 2 Timothy 2:23-26. The Message)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)