jQuery Slider

You are here

Do Christians Have a Moral Responsibility to Vote Trump?

Do Christians Have a Moral Responsibility to Vote Trump?

OPINION

By Dr. Gillis Harp
Special to VIRTUEONLINE
www.virtueonline.org
August 17, 2016

I have long respected the theological and biblical scholarship of Wayne Grudem. Professor Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary and his work has always struck me as measured and thoughtful. His biblical exegesis is usually marked by considerable discernment.

Imagine my surprise then when I encountered recently an overstated and distorted op-ed piece penned by Professor Grudem arguing that Christians had a moral responsibility to vote for Donald Trump.

Professor Grudem contends that his experience teaching Christian ethics has equipped him to offer evangelicals advice about how to cast their ballots this November. Indeed, he insists in almost apocalyptic terms that failing to support the Trump candidacy would assure the wholesale destruction of the Republic.

Sadly, Grudem's hyperbole follows a well-established historical pattern among American evangelicals.

Since at least the 1960s (and some historians trace it back considerably further), many evangelicals have approached politics in decidedly Manichean terms. In their binary system, one side is portrayed as satanic and the other as the unquestionable agents of national redemption. These politicized evangelicals have often simply baptized a collection of partisan talking points, rather than applying biblical principles in a thorough and nuanced way. Historically, there has been a lot of proof-texting but precious little theologically informed reflection or deliberate prudential reasoning. Accordingly, partisanship has usually prevailed over theology, or even over what conservative thinker Russell Kirk called the "politics of prudence."

Despite his considerable theological expertise, Professor Grudem unfortunately reverts to this well-worn path. He concludes that "not voting for Trump" will entail "abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death," ensuring that "thousands of Christians... will be excluded from their lifelong occupations," producing an economy "crushed by government hostility toward business," destroying public education, imposing a government-run healthcare system, letting ISIS run wild, deserting Israel and guaranteeing "judicial tyranny" at home. In his eyes, American presidents are apparently all-powerful!

Lest I be misinterpreted, there are certainly many reasons not to vote for Mrs. Clinton; only one of them, however, makes Professor Grudem's ominous-sounding list. Christians who believe that life begins at conception have every reason to be concerned about the Democratic nominee's enthusiastic support for abortion on demand. Still, given what little impact previous pro-life presidents have had on actually reducing the number of abortions, and the fluctuating position of Mr. Trump, this point appears overstated at best.

Grudem's remaining points are overdrawn to the point of gross caricature. Given their records, to describe either of the Clintons as hostile toward business is laughable -- their cozy relations with Wall Street (and giant investment banks in particular) are well documented. Mrs. Clinton does not support a single-payer health care system. There are many valid criticisms of Obamacare, but it hardly constitutes socialized medicine. Indeed, the non-partisan PolitiFact website awarded its 2010 "Lie of the Year" prize to the assertion that the Affordable Care Act represented a "government takeover" of healthcare. Meanwhile, though horrible attacks on so-called soft targets continue, the territorial base of ISIS in the Middle East has been dramatically reduced under President Obama.

As for Mr. Trump, he has not provided any details about how he would address these problems -- apart from expressing exuberant support for torture and the intentional targeting of non-combatants (about which Christian ethics do have something to say). It is almost as though Mr. Trump is such a thoroughly unsavory character that some evangelicals feel compelled in 2016 to ratchet up the catastrophic rhetoric. But the arguments are transparently partisan, rather than the product of careful theological reflection. Thus someone who clearly knows better dismisses Mr. Trump's flaws as comparatively minor shortcomings and exhorts Christians to support a twice-divorced owner of casinos who routinely insults his opponents, and demeans women. (In the interest of charity here, I'll limit my list.)

It is a sad commentary on our political system that our choice this fall is so dreadful. Evangelicals may honestly conclude (based on her demonstrated -- not imagined -- deficiencies) that they cannot cast a ballot for Mrs. Clinton. Fair enough. It hardly follows, however, that Mr. Trump is a defensible alternative. Professor Grudem's overwrought argument reflects more the reasoning of talk radio than it does anything recognizably Christian.

Gillis Harp teaches American history at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. He is the author, most recently, of Brahmin Prophet: Phillips Brooks and the Path of Liberal Protestantism (Rowman & Littlefield).He and his wife helped plant Grace Anglican Church in Slippery Rock, PA (ACNA). They will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of the parish this fall.

Subscribe
Get a bi-weekly summary of Anglican news from around the world.
comments powered by Disqus
Trinity School for Ministry
Go To Top