Trump – The only sensible choice?

August 4, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Posted in Christianity | 2 Comments
Tags: Bible, NeverTrump, Trump

This is one of the times when someone posts something so bad that I can’t help but reply. I don’t expect the author to read it and I really don’t care if she does or not. This blog is put forth as a defense of voting for Donald Trump based on the “principles laid out in the Word of God”. As you’ll see, there aren’t any biblical principles laid out. This blog isn’t just an example of pragmatic pleas to suspend your conscience to try and achieve a goal the author wants, it’s a great example of the many things wrong with modern Christianity today. With that, let’s dig in…

It is my estimation that 90% of the people who clicked on this link did so to openly mock and ridicule the redneck, Biblically illiterate, idiot who would dare to put the words, “Bible” and “Trump” in the same sentence. If this is you, congratulations to me for getting you to read this article, and congratulations to you because I am neither an idiot nor a heretic. The following is not some poorly-patched together, theological treatise that attempts to warp the Word of God in order to justify my political sacrilege.

Right off the bat, the author has her audience pegged. She knows for a fact (through direct contact with God maybe?) that the majority of those reading her post came here to “openly mock and ridicule” here and that they would see her as Biblically illiterate, idiotic, and a redneck. While I can’t speak to her being an idiot or a redneck, she’s done a great job on her own to show that her Biblical literacy leaves much to be desired. She is kind enough to assure plebes like myself (who came here to see if she would actually present some Biblical argument or if it would be more of the same, tired canards) that she’s neither an idiot nor a heretic. I’ll let the rest of her post speak for her on those points. The funniest thing is that she claims to not want to attempt to “warp the Word of God” to “justify her political sacrilege”. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what she does.

But since I’ve got you reading, let’s make a wager shall we? You read this article all the way through and as Cruz said, allow your “conscience” to be swayed, or not swayed, by what I believe to be Biblical wisdom. You have the right to judge for yourself.

She wants us to be swayed by what she believes to be Biblical wisdom. It’s noteworthy to see that this is not necessarily actual, Biblical wisdom; only what she believes to be Biblical wisdom. She graciously gives me the right to “judge for myself” (is judging ok in this case?) but spends her entire blog deriding me if I don’t come to the conclusions she wants me to. So, instead of having an actual argument for her case and leaving the decision to me, I get labeled before she ever makes her case with my only escape being to abandon everything I know and believe in to agree with her.

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

The author says that she fits the “classic profile” of a NeverTrumper but it’s obvious that she doesn’t understand anything about what NeverTrump is or what those who are part of it really stand for. The sad thing about this is that she believes that just because she fits into the certain demographics that seem to bear the most NeverTrumpers she automatically fits and would be a NeverTrumper. She claims to be a highly educated, theologically/politically conservative pastor’s wife. In most cases, this would be evident to those reading her arguments provided they reflected those things. She claims that she wants to be a NeverTrumper (mockingly) because it sounds so “brave”, “principled”, and “non-conformist” to stand up to someone like Trump (“a loud-mouthed billionaire with lofty promises for a better future”). Unfortunately, this shows that she’s created a strawman of the NeverTrump position. More on that in a little bit. She says she wants to be a NeverTrump, BUT she can’t ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God.

In Luke 9, we find the disciples recovering from a serious blow to their pride. Despite their best combined efforts, they had been unable to drive a demon out of a troubled young man, and had been reprimanded by Christ for their lack of faith. Just a few verses later, we find the dejected 12 incensed that another man, an outsider, was able to do what they had not. I believe Jesus’ surprising answer to their protests has great ramifications for today’s political conundrum.

Verses 49-50 read, “ ‘Master,‘ said John, ‘we saw a man driving out demons in Your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.’ ‘Do not stop him,’ Jesus said, ‘for whoever is not against you is for you.’” (1)

Our author then starts presenting her Biblical evidence with two verses from Luke 9. She tries to give us the context but fails. Instead, she gives us her opinion of what the passage is about (Beth Moore would be proud though), ignoring the actual context of the verses to set the framework for her agenda to convince Christians that it’s ok to vote for Trump. She claims that this passage has the disciples “recovering from a serious blow to their pride”. They couldn’t cast out a demon and Christ rebuked them for their lack of faith. According to the author, the 12 were then “incensed” just a “few verses later” that another man, an “outsider” (this is important!) was able to do what they had not. The author finally gets to her “argument” that Jesus’ response to them has ramifications for the 2016 general election.

First, this needs to be fleshed out better before getting to her “argument”. At the beginning of the chapter, the disciples were sent out by Jesus with the power over demons and to heal sicknesses. They were to go out and proclaim the kingdom of God and perform healing. Then Jesus fed five thousand with five loaves and two fish. After that, Jesus asks them who people say He is. Some say He’s Elijah, others say He’s one of the prophets of old risen again. Peter, however, rightly claims that Jesus is the Christ of God. He then tells the disciples not to tell anyone and explains what will happen to Him during the Passion Week. He tells them that anyone who comes after Him must deny themselves, pick up their cross, and follow Him. They must not desire the world’s profits or be ashamed of His words. Eight days after this, He took Peter, James, and John up to the mountain. Here Jesus was transfigured and the three disciples saw Him in His glory with Elijah and Moses. God speaks to them and tells them to listen to His Son.

The next day is where the author picks up the story. Peter, James, and John are coming down the mount of transfiguration with Jesus when a man with a demon-possessed son comes to Him begging Him to cast the demon out of his only son because the (remaining) disciples couldn’t do it. Jesus rebukes their lack of faith and casts out the demon. The gathered crowd is amazed at the GREATNESS OF GOD. While they’re amazed, Jesus turns to His disciples and reminds them that He will soon be delivered into the hands of men. Shortly after this, the disciples get into an argument about who is the greatest among them. Jesus tells them “he who is least among you, this is the one who is great”. John answers Jesus’s statement by explaining that they saw someone casting out demons in the Name of Jesus and they tried to prevent him because they didn’t follow with the disciples. Jesus tells them not to hinder him for “he who is not against you is for you”.

The point of everything that was happening is not that an outsider was doing something that the disciples couldn’t do. Jesus had given them power and authority over the demons at the beginning of the chapter and they had gone out to preach the gospel and heal others. They marveled at the power they had to cast out demons. They weren’t able to cast out the one in the boy but that was a specific instance. The author wants to make the story about an “outsider” doing something that the disciples couldn’t do because it fits her narrative and helps lend credibility to her argument. Unfortuately, it is a misuse of scripture and not a “principle of God’s Word”. Trump and his supporters have touted him as a “political outsider” who isn’t part of the establishment. There was plenty of evidence from the beginning that this wasn’t the case. Trump has run at least two other times for POTUS as well as giving a lot of money to liberal Democrats. He has supported the Clintons for decades and has bragged about how “no one knows the system” like he does. To say that someone like Trump is an outsider is both foolish and ignorant, given all of the air time he’s gotten to display his…qualities to the American public.

I can sense your hackles immediately rising from across the screen. “But Trump is NOT for us!” you object, “his essence oozes the opposite of Christian values!” I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

Again we see the author’s obvious supernatural connection to the Lord by how she can already determine my response to her poor argument. While I would readily agree that Trump is not a Christian nor is he “for us”, this is blatantly obvious to anyone who watches/listens to him for just a couple minutes. She tries to deflect the question of Trumps character by saying that we’re “not electing Trump to sacred or ecclesiastical office” because, if we were, she would have to be hogtied and held down to vote for him. I have to wonder why this is a bad thing to hold the character of the POTUS to the same standards as someone who is a pastor or deacon? Is it ok to lower our standards because we’re voting for president? Does it matter how low they go? For someone as obviously anti-Christian as Trump to gain the support of so many professing evangelicals/Christians says more about the term “evangelical” or “Christian” than it does about Trump. Why doesn’t the author want to argue Trump’s morality? Is it because that’s not possible from the “principles found in the Word of God”?

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. I would think that his promise to appoint a conservative Supreme Court Justice should “Trump” (excuse the pun), our other hesitations. He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America. As a side note, I am appalled at the way the Body has treated the members of this committee and other evangelical heavy hitters who have endorsed Trump. We are willing to let Dr. Dobson dictate the way we raise our children, yet the instant he speaks out on a political issue, we mock him and call him a coward? We make Kirk Cameron our Hollywood hero, pay big bucks to go see his films, and then call him a sell out when he makes a comment about where we should place our vote? Maybe we should let our ruffled egos settle down for a moment and consider that we would willingly adhere to the wisdom of these men on any other issue. Even if you disagree with their political choice, please have the decency to treat them with the respect that their years of faithful service to the Kingdom have warranted.

The author claims that Trump has “gone to great lengths” to show that he’ll “protect and champion” the rights of American evangelicals. The problem is, she hasn’t given any concrete examples of actions that show he’ll do this. Where are all of these “demonstrations” of his protection of the rights of Christians? Was it his position on abortion? You know, the one that changed 5 times in less than 3 days? One that went from “punish the mothers” to “I just meant punish the doctors” to “ban late birth abortions with exceptions”? How has this inconsistency and wishy-washy stance shown that he’ll stand strong for Christians? What about his position on LGBT issues? He said he’s opposed to gay marriage but he also said that he would support the SCOTUS ruling allowing it. His response to Kim Davis was that the SCOTUS ruled (positively on gay rights…) and it was “the law of the land”. Did he defend Davis’ Christian liberties?

What about the evidence that Trump has been pandering to Christians from the beginning (duh) and being coached on what to say to gain their votes? Does this somehow demonstrate his sincere willingness to defend religious liberties for Christians? I don’t think it does. She says that his promise to “appoint a conservative SCOTUS judge” should take precedence over our “other hesitations”. Wait…what? So his promise to pick a conservative SCOTUS judge should be our priority as Christians? We’ve seen how well Trump does on his promises (Trump University anyone?). And these are just the some of the problems with Trump on moral issues. This doesn’t even touch his incompetence on foreign policy, domestic policy, understanding of how laws are made, etc.

The author then takes a little rabbit trail and mentions Trumps “faith advisory committee” composed of “some of the most respected Christian leaders in America” as an example of how Trump is a champion of Christian rights. Ok. Let’s look at some of these Christian leaders. They include Michele Bachmann (she’s a “Christian leader”?), A.R. Bernard (seeker-sensitive, power of positive thinking), Mark Burns (Word of Faith heretic), Ken and Gloria Copeland (WOF heretics), Jentzen Franklin (WOF), Paula White (WOF pastrix), James Robison (WOF, seeker-sensitive), James MacDonald (WOF, seeker-sensitive), Ronnie “Armani” Floyd (SBC, WOF, seeker-sensitive), and the list goes on. The majority of these people aren’t solid Biblical examples. Many of them are “pastors” of megachurches. Coincidence? The author is “appalled” at the way the members of the committee and other “heavy hitters” have been treated for supporting Trump. Why? She points out how James Dobson and Kirk Cameron have been attacked and ridiculed for their decision to support Trump. Why shouldn’t they be? They are publicly endorsing someone who doesn’t even come close to representing Christianity and hasn’t shown any indication that they care. But, the problem is bigger than this.

The author uses a fallacy known as a faulty appeal to authority. She talks about how these men are “experts” (Dobson on family issues, Cameron on….um…I’m not sure what Kirk Cameron is an expert on. Hollywood heroing?) and how we should listen to them when they endorse Trump because we listen to them when they talk in their area of expertise. This is poor logic. Just because Dobson is an “expert” in family issues (which I would probably disagree with) doesn’t make him an expert in other things. And, even if he is an expert, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use discernment when listening to them, even in their area of expertise. I, for one, wouldn’t “willingly adhere to the wisdom of these men on any other issue”. They should be treated with respect, even when disagreeing, but they shouldn’t be put up on a pedestal as wise sages and subject matter experts on every issue.

Speaking of wisdom, would you PLEASE stop saying that failing to vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary…it is. No matter how much you attempt to pad your argument with mathematical or philosophical meanderings, the simple truth is that a third party NEVER has and NEVER will win the presidency. (Go ahead, quote your Abraham Lincoln story at me, but please don’t forget to add that he did not face 2 dominant parties in his election. He faced four weak and divided ones.) Some of you have offered a far fetched equation that would enable a third party to steal enough votes to give the House the right to choose the president from among the top contenders. I would think that this option would be repulsive to you since most Never Trumpers claim to be proponents of “small government,” and this outcome would completely subvert the will of the people. Never Trumpers also tend to be very intelligent former debaters. This means you love logic. Logically speaking, if only two people are in a contest, your failure to endorse one candidate is implicit endorsement of the other…and you know it.

Now the author would like to share more wisdom. She repeats a common canard that not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. This is not true in the slightest and shows more assumptions and bias on the author’s part. I have to ask though. Is this Biblical wisdom found in the principles of scripture or is it wisdom from some other source? The author wants us to believe that “failing to vote for Trump” is a vote for Hillary and her reasoning for this is: just because. The author makes no logical conclusions as to why this is so. She makes assertions and then decides to add a point that really doesn’t fit with her argument: a third party has and will never win the presidency. Hmmm…it seems the author is a prophet as well. The fact that a third party has never won a presidency yet, doesn’t mean that they can’t or won’t at some time. She notes Abraham Lincoln’s win is irrelevant because “he didn’t face two dominant parties”. While I don’t know that I would call Lincoln a “third party” candidate, I would also say that the two parties that are usually considered “dominant” aren’t so dominant this year.

While some may have offered a “far-fetched” hope of the HOR choosing the candidate, I don’t buy it. She makes a back-handed compliment about NeverTrumpers loving logic and then shows that she, herself, can’t use logic. She claims that “logically speaking” if only two people are in a contest, failing to endorse one candidate is an “implicit endorsement” of the other..AND WE KNOW IT. This is just poor all the way around. The idea that not choosing one of two options being an endorsement (implicit or otherwise) of the other is ludicrous. It shows the “far-fetched” ideas aren’t just by those hoping Trump loses. It seems like the author will put forth any option that might coerce people to vote for someone other than Hillary. The truth is, if I don’t vote for Trump (and I won’t), it’s not a vote for Hillary. While the author may not like it or may not understand it, a vote is only a positive action. What I mean is, regardless of what emotional or philosophical statement you want your vote to make (“I’m voting against Hillary not voting for Trump”), you can only vote for someone, not against someone else. So, while you may want to vote against Hillary, you are still voting for Trump. You have determined that of the two candidates, he is the “lesser evil” or more palatable (read: pragmatic) choice.

There are other problems too. For instance, the assumption here is that I can’t dislike both candidates. I’m somehow bound to like one or the other (or the other or the other or the other). This is a false dichotomy. I can fairly, justly, and in good conscience think that all of the candidates are different forms and stages of a dumpster fire and not vote for any of them. But, this leads to another problem. If I don’t vote for Trump it’s supposedly a vote for Hillary. I’m not voting for Hillary either so, by the author’s logic, that would be a vote for Trump, right? In other words, my “votes” cancel out. This is why votes need to be seen for what they are and not some sort of philosophical statement. The fact that the author misses all of this and just rests her argument on her own assertions of how NeverTrumpers just know that they’re being dishonest speaks volumes.

Some of you have answered this argument by claiming that, “A vote for no one is a vote for no one,” or, “by this logic, a failure to vote for Hillary would be a vote for Trump,” and thus, will choose to forgo the vote entirely. I would answer this contention by pointing out that a failure to proactively cast your vote against Hillary means that she is one vote closer to winning the election. Your vote does matter. You are either helping to push her one step forward, or one step backwards by your failure to act. You choose.

Here, the author tries to answer the last statement I made above and fails. She implies that not voting for Trump means that Hillary is “one vote closer to winning”. Unfortunately, this isn’t true. She is only (in the author’s mind) one vote closer if I vote for her. If I don’t vote for her, then she doesn’t budge. This can be seen with a simple example. If Hillary had 99 votes and I didn’t vote for Trump as a protest vote against Hillary, how many votes would Hillary have? She would still have 99 votes. She doesn’t get any closer to winning because I don’t vote for her opponent. This should be simple math but it seems to have escaped the author in her zeal to drum up support for Trump in her fear that Hillary will win otherwise. I do believe that my vote matters, but it’s obviously for a different reason than the author. My vote is one of hundreds of thousands of votes. It would be impossible to show that it was my vote that helped Hillary win, especially if you understand how the election actually works. When Americans vote, it’s not a direct voting like in a democracy. In case you weren’t aware, America isn’t a democracy, it’s a representative republic. Therefore, the election isn’t a popularity contest where the person who gets the most votes automatically wins (contrary to what Trump thinks btw…). Instead, the election is determined by the Electoral College. When you vote, you’re voting for electors, not for the candidate themselves. This means that if I don’t vote for Trump, it’s not a vote for Hillary (gasp!) because it’s the electors that will ultimately determine the winner. This means that I’m not helping Hillary go anywhere and my choice says more about me and my character.

For those of you who argue that, “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil,” I urge you to stop and think about the fallacious foundation of that statement as it applies to this circumstance. If abstaining from the vote entirely were a viable option in this election, then perhaps your pious sounding claim would hold its ground. As I have already demonstrated above, by not voting for one “evil” you ARE, like it or not, casting your vote for the other. Even if I accept your terms and define Hillary as the “big” evil and Trump as the “little” evil, you are going to be endorsing an “evil” no matter WHAT you do on Election Day. The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

I find it somewhat amusing that the author wants to talk about fallacies at this point. She seems to continue with her fallacy that there are only two valid options, and she’ll do it while trying to poke NeverTrumpers (the people she’s trying to win to her side) in the process. The author says that abstaining from the vote entirely is not a viable option. Not a viable option for who? I could see how it wouldn’t look like a viable option to someone who hangs her hope for the future of our country on whether or not Trump wins. For some of the rest of us, abstaining from voting is one of many viable options for living out our character and conscience (our “pious sounding claim”) the way the Bible tells us to. Again, the author asserts that not voting for one evil (at least she sees Trump as evil…that’s a start) IS voting for the other.

As I pointed out above, making assertions for something doesn’t make it true no matter how sincere you might be. If it did, children would be ruling the world right now (well, actually physical children, not the ones currently in office). The author has bought in to the “only two options” and “anything but Hillary” canards and just makes greater leaps of imagination as she goes. She tries to say that because Trump has promised to protect Christian rights it somehow makes it true. Like Trump has never gone back on his promises…ever. He’s never said whatever he needed to say to get what he wanted, never having any intention of keeping his promise. The fact that the author can with a straight face say that Trump’s promise somehow has any weight (without giving any concrete evidence for this) is pretty telling. Hillary will push the US to the left, but we have no guarantee (and a lot of evidence to the contrary) that Trump will be any different.

“But, but..” I can hear your continued protests and growing disgust, “Trump is so, so…pompous, so brash, so unfit for office.” The disciples didn’t approve of the outsider who was doing their job either. Jesus helped to correct their perspective. This wasn’t about them. This was about the future of the Kingdom. (I can still feel your eyes rolling at me but please listen…)

I believe that a lot of the discontent over Trump is due to his brash nature, yes, but also because of the blow that was dealt to your pride when an outsider was able to come in and usurp the leadership of your party. This may not be true of you at all, but I am certain that it is a large part of the driving force behind the Never Trump movement. I am simply asking that you examine your motives. If you detect pride as a motivating factor, please pray to be released from it and follow the example of Ben Carson. If anyone had a bone to pick with Trump, it was Dr. Carson, but as he so wisely stated in a Fox interview when asked how he was able to get over the personal insults dealt him by Trump, “If this was about me, I could never get over it. This is about the future of our country.”

Again God has given the author insight into my mind. Trump is all of the things that she says and more. But her connection of Trump to the man (“outsider”) casting out demons in Luke 9 is ridiculous. Trump isn’t “doing our job”. And this is part of the biggest problem with the blog post and the theology/philosophy behind it. More on that later. I have to ask the author what she thinks our job is? According to scripture, our job is to preach the gospel and make disciples. Has Trump done this? Where has he presented a clear gospel where Christ saves sinners? The man said that he has a great relationship with God and doesn’t need to ask for forgiveness because he doesn’t make mistakes. That’s not Christian character. Did he proclaim the gospel when he made derogatory statements against women, minorities, or handicapped people? Nope. But, I’m a little confused by something. Earlier the author said that we’re not electing someone to an ecclesiastical office and therefore don’t need to worry so much about his character, but now she’s telling us that Trump is doing our job. Those don’t seem to jive that well.

For once, the author and I agree on something. The passage she quoted from Luke 9 shows that it wasn’t about the disciples (and the blind squirrels rejoiced!), however she still doesn’t seem to understand what it was about. It wasn’t about the future of the Kingdom, it was about the greatness of Christ! Because the author can’t decide whether she wants me to agree with her or she wants to bash me, she jumps back to attacking me because I’m too prideful to agree with her. I’m obviously upset that an “outsider” came in and usurped the leadership of my party. The problem is, the GOP isn’t my party. I’m registered as a Republican, but they don’t represent me and they’re not my party. Trump took control of a weak-willed, wishy-washy group of men who clearly have no backbone or integrity. It’s why he fits in. After condemning me for being pridefully upset for what Trump has done, she admits that it might not be me, but she’s still certain that it’s most of the NeverTrump movement. Having the ability to see into people’s hearts (from across an Ethernet connection no less!) must be both difficult and burdensome. Thankfully, the author is able to bear this all with humility and a Christ-like grace. She then calls on me to release any pride I may have and be more like Ben Carson. What exactly does she mean? Should I become a Seventh Day Adventist (a non-Christian cult)? Should I pretend to be a Christian so that I can gain fame and celebrity all while using it to collect money and speaking engagements? No, she means that I should “get over personal insults” and vote for Trump “for the future of the country”. First, Trump has never personally insulted me. Second, this IS about the future of our country and not allowing someone like Trump or Hillary to be POTUS. It’s about understanding that neither “dominant party” represents Christians or fights for their rights.

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Thankfully, the author cuts to the chase and drops the Christian façade. She wants me to “get over myself”. According to her, this isn’t about my “personal likes and dislikes”. Of course, it’s about the author’s personal likes and dislikes! She doesn’t want us to act according to our own conscience (that line at the beginning of the blog couldn’t have been serious considering the path she took afterward). She wants us to act on her personal likes and dislikes. She wants us to vote for the person she likes and the one that she thinks should be president. She then tosses in an emotional line about how this is about the future of my child. So, what she’s saying is: If I fail to vote for Trump; my single, personal, vote will cause the Electoral College to fall apart and give the entire election to Hillary and my daughter will be unable to function because there is no one and nothing that will keep Hillary in check. Because I’m so prideful and self-centered (and she knows this because God told her) I would risk the complete destruction of our country and the future of my child so that I can be “brave” and stand on my “pious”, “principled” laurels. Oh…AND I’m to blame when Hillary is elected (not the GOP who allowed this train wreck of a man to actually represent them).

You will have lost the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel because you had your chance to do something about it and you did NOTHING.

Unlike the author, I’m not looking to be a martyr. I’m looking to be a consistent Christian and conservative (in that order). When Hillary comes after my right to speak the truth about sin and the exclusivity of the gospel (did she choose these because she thought they might prick my conscience for her way?), I will do the same thing that I’ve been doing. I’ll preach the gospel and warn others about sin, because the Lord Jesus commands me to do so. If the government makes it illegal or a crime to do so, it will not change my commission from God. The thing is, Trump hasn’t given any indication that he’ll be any better. He’s said all the things that “evangelicals” want to hear (and has obviously convinced some that he really, really means it) but his actions contradict his words. The author needs to understand that there is a different between deliberate action based on the truths of the gospel and just acting because she’s sees doing nothing as allowing an event she doesn’t want to happen to take place.

Some of you have chosen to avoid the conflict entirely, and have decided to abstain from voting because no matter the outcome, “God is in control.” I agree 100% that God is in control and that no matter who is president, Jesus Christ is King. This overarching fact that God reigns has NEVER been an excuse for inaction. In 1 Timothy 2:2 we are commanded to pray, “For kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” (2) If we are to pray for a political environment that fosters peaceful Gospel conversations, does it not logically follow that if given the opportunity to help make this a reality, we should act?

This is another of the author’s straw men of the NeverTrumper position. I’ve not seen any NeverTrumper make this argument. It’s funny that she talks about NeverTrumpers being logical but then makes strawmen like this. She says that she believes in God’s sovereignty. That’s good. However, her overarching “fact” leaves a lot to be desired. While there are people who are inactive because they believe God will “take care of it”, she can’t (and hasn’t) shown this to be true of NeverTrumpers. However, let’s play the game. There is also an “overarching fact” that God’s sovereignty has also NEVER been an excuse for Christians to pragmatically assume that they can twist scripture to help make themselves feel better about making choices that would otherwise reflect poorly on Christ or their professed faith. She then shows this fact by misusing 1 Timothy 2:2. We are commanded to pray for kings and those in authority so that we may live in godliness and holiness. We are also to do what we can to “live at peace with all men” (Romans 12:18). Notice, though, that the author jumps from praying for people to praying for a political environment. We’re to pray for kings and authority that they might be “saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” not that they would create a “political environment that fosters peaceful Gospel conversations”. If we can elect people that would allow a greater freedom for Christians to preach the gospel to the lost, we should. However, there are no candidates that have shown that they would actually do this.

This situation reminds of the parable of the drowning man who turned down three rescue attempts with the rationale that, “God would come and save him.” When he drowned, he questioned God about why He would allow him to die. God responded with, “I sent you three boats!”

Whether you like it or not, America is drowning and the Trump boat, though less than desirable, is the only viable option for rescue we have to keep us afloat for the time being.

It is important to note that this parable is not in scripture. It is a joke that has been turned into a sermon illustration. America may be drowning but neither Trump nor the author has shown how he can actually “keep us afloat”. I do find it interesting (read: funny) that the author admits that Trump is both “less than desirable” and unable to “rescue” us like he says he is.

In Cruz’s address to the Republican convention, he repeatedly acknowledged the fact that this may be America’s last chance to save herself. I beg you to consider the words of your own hero and make the only sensible choice.

Again we see the author clip a small part of Cruz’s speech to try and make her point. At least Cruz is in good company, she seems to treat the scriptures the same way. While Ted Cruz is a Christian constitutional conservative that I agree with on a majority of things, he’s not my hero. He was and is the person I would love to see as president because he actually means what he says. He is consistent and has a record of defending freedoms, including religious ones, from those who would take them away, unlike Donald Trump. He has followed through and done exactly what he said he would do, again unlike Trump. The author tries to play to fears that I don’t have. The reality is, America can’t save herself. The people of America can’t save themselves or their country. They can, however, vote based on character and principles found in scripture to let it be known that they will no longer allow themselves to be manipulated by the GOP and that their values matter more than a “win”. This, to me, is the only sensible choice. Cruz also said that we should stand up, speak up, and vote our conscience. While it may be hard for the author to fathom, there are people who actually allow their conscience to be shaped by what the scriptures plainly teach and not just the pragmatic “principles” that scriptural origami creates. Hence NeverTrump.

If you do not vote for Trump and therefore vote for Hillary, I do not want to hear you complain about the escalating murders of third trimester, unborn lives in America and the increasing span of The Parental Rights Organization, because you had your chance to do something and you did nothing.

If you do not vote for Trump and therefore vote for Hillary, I do not want to hear you complain about future, liberal Supreme Court Rulings, because you had your chance to do something and you did nothing.

If you do not vote for Trump and therefore vote for Hillary, then I don’t want to hear you complain when your pastor is imprisoned for hate speech crimes, because you had your chance to do something and you did nothing.

If you do not vote for Trump and therefore vote for Hillary, then I don’t want to hear you complain when you lose your right to bear arms and fret over the safety of your family, because you had the chance to do something and you did nothing.

If you do not vote for Trump and therefore vote for Hillary, don’t tell me you were being self sacrificial and that you did it “for your country.” Because you didn’t. You did it for yourself.

Once again, in a stunning bipolar moment, the author goes from begging us to “make the only sensible choice” to launching into a diatribe about how we’re to blame if Hillary wins. Even worse, all of us “brave”, “principled” people won’t have any right to complain because WE DID NOTHING (dun dun duuuuuun). This shows that the author only values the vote and stance of NeverTrumpers when it agrees with her (no surprise there). If I decide that my conscience, my character, and my position as an ambassador of Christ to the lost and dying (or drowning) world is more important than casting a vote for someone who is diametrically opposed to those same values, I’m the enemy. I’ve allowed Hillary to win because I somehow managed to look objectively at the situation and found every candidate lacking the character and moral backbone that aligns with my faith. I’m perfectly ok with that. I’m also ok with not lowering my standards to the point where they’re already met. Saying that I didn’t compromise my vote, my character, or my faith for my country but instead because I was selfish is just one more evidence that the author really doesn’t have an argument and just wants to emotionally manipulate people into doing what she wants for her own personal reasons (wait…isn’t that hypocrisy?).

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

So, Trump’s not great, he’s not even good, he’s the “little evil”, he less than desirable, but I should vote for him because he’s not Hillary. Got it. She says she’s arguing “in the words of Christ Himself”, except for the fact that she’s failed to show how Christ has Trump in mind when He told His disciples not to hinder a man casting out demons in His name. Not only that but the idea that God can use non-Christian individuals to further His purposes isn’t the issue. He used Balaam to bless the Israelites, He used the Roman soldier as an example of faith, and He used Pilate to kill Christ. The problem comes from the idea that Donald Trump is someone that God is using to protect His people. God’s judgment on nations comes in many forms and one of those forms is giving them leaders that are incompetent and the exact opposite of His character and nature because it’s what the people clamored for.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

This too is a terrible sentiment. Trump is not the right man for POTUS and making this assertion doesn’t make it true. He has shown that he can’t run a campaign, that he doesn’t care about the rules of primaries, that he’s constantly causing drama with those in his own party, that he is a pathological liar that doesn’t even care if he gets caught, that he has no understanding of domestic policy, no understanding of foreign policy, no understanding of how laws are made, no ability to control himself, no understanding of the nuclear triad, and many, many, many other things that the president will be required to know to just function. This is on top of the fact that he has no clue what even the most basic Christian doctrines are or what Christians really believe.

Unless something cataclysmic occurrs between then and now, he will be receiving my vote in November.

Something cataclysmic like a Sweet Meteor of Death?

Ironically, though many Never Trumpers have claimed that they will not be “bullied” or “harrassed” into voting for Trump, I have been forced to publish this note anonymously to avoid the violent backlash that is certain to ensue. I am also certain some will call my intense tone throughout this article, “bullying.” It is not my intent to bully. It is my intent to demonstrate what I believe to be the seriousness of this situation. Please do not equate my heartfelt cry with harassment. I, as well as you, have the right to be passionate in the expression of your beliefs. That’s what America is supposed to be all about isn’t it? Despite our differing opinions, I will continue to love, respect, and enjoy the friendship of my “Never Trumper” friends throughout and after the conclusion of this election cycle.

Ok, wait. The author posted this anonymously based on expected backlash? So she wants to put up a public blog about a position that she’s convicted is biblical and right and wants to talk about how she is concerned about not having the right to speak out about her faith if Trump doesn’t win but she can’t put her name on her blog post because she is sure that NeverTrumpers are going to have a “violent backlash” to what she said? First, I find this a little weak. The author has tried to make herself a martyr for her “defense” of voting for Trump while taking the martyr card away from the NeverTrumpers. She’s hardly a martyr. If you’re going to have a position that you want to convince other of and you are going to mock and ridicule them, at least put your name on it and own it. Second, it seems a little proud to think that you’ve written something so convincing and sound in argumentation that people will have a violent backlash to it. Maybe the author should take a little of her own advice and get over herself. She claims that her “intense tone” isn’t bullying. I could agree with this. I’ve been much snarkier in some of the things that I’ve written in other posts and don’t think it was bullying. What could be considered bullying is the mocking of the NeverTrumpers and their “pious claims”. I don’t consider it bullying but I’m used to this type of stuff…

My conscience is clear before God because I have done all that I believe He has called me to in regards to this issue. Can you say the same?

When you find in scripture the very things you need to justify a position that you already wanted to take, it’s not hard for your “conscience to be clear”. I can say the same. I can say that I look at scripture and see that a man who has the characteristics of Donald Trump is not someone who represents anything that Christians should be voting for, even if he’s “not Hillary”.

P.S. WHY I HAVE CHOSEN ANONYMITY. As the comments have continued to roll in, I have begun to prayerfully consider whether anonymity and or publishing this article was a wise decision considering my primary goal in life is not politics, but as a defender of the Gospel. I was working on a piece to explain this, but have found a friend’s blog who has gone through a similar experience and expressed my sentiments nearly perfectly. To Speak Or Not To Speak, Should Christians Engage In the Current Political Debate. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.

The author claims to want to be seen as a “defender of the gospel”. While I would hope that any professing Christian would have this be their main endeavor, I am wondering how she “defends” the gospel (or even what she considers the gospel to be). This truly is the problem with this blog and the position it takes. The fact that the author can twist scripture to make it support whatever she wants it to without remorse and with a clear conscience seems to be at odds with what the text itself says about how scripture is to be handled and the authority that it has. I have no problem with Christians engaging in political debates. The problem that I have is that so many are so biblically illiterate that they’re unable to see themselves standing firmly anchored in mid-air as they “defend” the gospel and the stance they take.

P. S. If you don’t find my arguments to be a solid enough Biblical case, please take the time to check out the wisdom of Wayne Grudem, renown theologian and his thoughts on “Why Voting For Trump Is A Morally Good Choice.”

I’ve read Grudem’s article and I don’t really think that he’s made any better a case for voting for Trump than the author of this post has…