Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does God Want Us to Support Or Oppose Donald Trump?
Although I am confident that God agrees with me on just about every issue, I am very reluctant to offer that as persuasive evidence of the rightness of whatever profundity I happen to be offering at any given moment. It would be great if eternal salvation were determined only by the depth and sophistication of one’s political opinions but nothing worthwhile is ever that simple. Worse, declarations of one’s own piety and righteousness invariably lead to the discovery of hypocrisy on a significant scale.
Christians do not get much in the way of partisan guidance from the New Testament. The closest we get is the cryptic lesson from that time when some snarky MSM-type jerkweed thought he could trap Jesus into expressing a controversial opinion. Jesus would either have to back the nationalist struggle against Roman rule and get in big trouble with the authorities or go squish and endorse Rome and thus alienate many of his followers. Here is the version in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 20:
20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
I estimate that in the two millennia since this incident that there have been about 20 to 22 billion sermons, homilies, meditations and exegeses on this event. I could also expound, of course, but let me just say that this passage means that in political matters (and all else) you must always consult (a well-formed) conscience, then do what you gotta do and make the best choices you can under the circumstances. Clear, universally agreed-upon, unambiguous answers are probably not going to be forthcoming most of the time. And you will sometimes find yourself in disagreement with people of goodwill.
For example, there has been a mini-revival on the Catholic left to express both criticisms of the social costs of capitalism and a fondness for political movements to compel a more ordered economy. While I have very smart friends who hold these opinions, I happen to regard these leanings as anachronistic (the tech innovation genie is never going back in the bottle), blind to the political distortion and potential abuse of power needed to stifle economic change and a distraction from a need to build support structures to deal with change instead of futilely fighting change.
While it is obvious that I am right about all this, it is by no means obvious that their misguided positions are immoral or inconsistent with the spirit and substance of Christianity. Similarly, we may ask whether is a war immoral because of death and damage or right and just because of the evils opposed. The war in Vietnam, the nuking of Hiroshima or war by drone strikes can be debated on moral terms by well-intentioned people of good conscience who reach opposing views.
But none of those great moral questions have the scope and centrality of the overriding theological issue before us today: Does God want us to support or oppose Donald Trump?
Trump is venal, often treats underlings badly, is given to subjective stylings when more disciplined deliberations would be preferable. Like Bill Clinton, Trump has a history of sexual infidelity but unlike Clinton, it has not carried over into his to time in office. (For the record, this comment should be regarded as a loving fraternal correction and not a judgment of either President.)
Even though I already know what God would prefer in this regard, as an exercise, let’s explore the possibilities:
God Wants Us to Support Mr. Trump. (“Favors”) Let us dispense with the pro forma notions of a prayerful wish for the well-being of all our elected leaders, rendering respect for the office, etc. and look to Mr. Trump specifically. In the Favors position, one knowingly supports a conspicuously flawed man because he has delivered policies and outcomes largely consistent with the preferences and interests of people who practice or allow their political outlook to be shaped by religious faith. This preference for the Favors position is further driven by the fact that the opposition party, while committed to a dialogue of compassion, acceptance, and community is also overtly hostile to all orthodox religious beliefs, practices, and institutions.
I should point out that defending religious values, traditions and institutions against assault and persecution is not prima facie evidence of a sanctifiable intent or action. A favorable secular outcome and a loathing of one’s avowed culture-war enemies is not necessarily proof of morally correct intentions. So the claim that to support Trump politically is to advance the cause of righteousness and is thus the morally superior position is not necessarily theologically correct, especially in light of traditional Christian indifference to adverse temporal outcomes where higher goals are sought.
God Wants Us to Oppose Mr. Trump. (“Opposes”) The opposition to Trump by the forces of perversion, servitude and socioeconomic rot that collectively go by the name “Democratic Party” is mere politics in a debased age. The more interesting theological question involves those who oppose both the tenets of the Democratic Party and the continuance in office by Donald Trump.
The Opposes position focuses on Mr. Trump’s past behavior, rude utterances, venal spontaneities, and ad hominem style. These are said to demean the highest political office in the land, threaten to produce dangerously inconsistent policies, lower the tone of American political discourse and forever tarnish the image of the party of Lincoln and Reagan. The rescue of what is good in the American system of governance and the preservation of the major conservative political party require the removal of Donald Trump. Moreover, it is simply wrong to tacitly or expressly condone such unacceptable behavior.
This is a nominally coherent moral position. (At this time, we will not explore the dangers inherent in a moral position founded on beliefs concerning someone else’s sins.) However, if the Favors position seems too dependent on positive secular outcomes for its justification, the Opposes position suffers from a strange indifference to the material consequences of its posture. The amelioration of evils attributed to the presidency of Donald Trump requires that he be replaced but someone who will not be similarly evil or worse. The notion that history will applaud a principled stand that actually ushered in le déluge seems oddly solipsistic.
Conclusion. God and I agree that the Favors position is way too presumptuous about its spiritual righteousness –one can be an atheist pervert and still loathe and oppose Marxism and its variants. Combatting temporal evils is not necessarily a sanctified undertaking. We also agree that the Opposes position too readily devolves into a kind of narcissism, a mere declaration of personal moral superiority to a particular sinner without regard for larger personal obligations and consequences of taking that position.
In short, God wants out of this debate. God does not want to be invoked when it is not about what God expressly wants. When we consider that the Highest Being in the universe can forgive even the likes of Pol Pot, Ted Bundy or Brian Stelter we should be humbled and strongly hesitant to think our partisan preferences carry divine endorsement. We are all equal on Ricochet, sinners all, required to address temporal matters on a temporal plane as best we can with mutual respect and humility. Thus endeth the sermon. Cheers.
Published in General
Could I be an agnostic pervert instead?
Though honestly, I’m pretty tame compared to what politicians and celebrities get up to.
Old Bathos, you stated that wonderfully. And I agree with you, so you are absolutely correct.
Such insight, discernment, and wisdom is rare these days.
A redneck friend told me the other day he had read something about ruins near Christ’s home being discovered with markings that foretold of Trump. Sadly, there is a lot of silly hero worship around Trump. Many people show more enthusiasm when talking about Trump than they do about Jesus.
Ethics are moral principles applied to specific circumstances. Christianity focuses on morals and advises the virtue of prudence in application. It’s good to always check back with God and pray for ethical guidance. But ethics generally require balance and prioritization of competing values.
It’s a messy business. On many dilemmas, but not all, good people can differ.
I think that after decades in which Hollywood, academia and Democratic politicians got to call us troglodytes, and hate-filled racists and our response was personified not so much by Rush Limbaugh as by weak polite smiles from Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney, the fact that Trump hits back seems cathartic and exciting.
The fact that the enemy now expressly endorses infanticide and the banishment of all orthodox organized religion and compulsory pubic affirmation of all manner of deviance elevates Trump’s role as champion of the normals. It is a unique phenomenon.
I understand that Trump fights. I appreciate his policy and I appreciate how he attacks the media which exists just to spread hatred and the unconstrained vision that never worked. But the dude is a jerk. He isn’t the kinda person I want to be and he isn’t the kinda person I want my nieces to become. I have decided that we need him because he can cut through the polite lies and Truth has to come first
But I don’t want to have to hate half of my fellow Americans just because they believe in crazy stuff.
Has anyone told David French? I am told he is the premier moralist in the country, a Top Man who can spot a mote in a sinner’s eye from 20,000 feet. Why, just the other day, he had this to say:
And this regarding Trump and his supporters:
And finally this on why Trump’s pro-life work is to be scorned:
Your essay is excellent but I think you’ll agree that it can’t hold a votive candle to the soon-to-be canonized St. David of Dispatch. Therefore, I will defer to Mr. French (not Buffy & Jody’s butler) to tell me how Christians should vote. French Davidians unite!
god makes all kinds. Shrug.
There is a time for all things. shrug.
I listened to pre-rally interviews of people waiting in Manchester while I drove home last night. One was with a very articulate and composed 26 yr old seminarian who drove to Manchester from Portsmouth with his parents. This question was asked of him and his very insightful response was: “I don’t expect my President to be my spiritual guide or teacher. I expect him to be the protector of our country and the defender of our Constitution.” With more well chosen words and explanation. (I’d go to his church to hear him preach, too.) Either job is hard enough, so I’ll “hire” the best for the job as it requires. I guess that comes under the rubric of giving back to Caesar what is Caesar’s. And I’m really sure I would reject a President who strayed from that job description to tell me how to worship.
pharisees gonna pharisee. shrug.
I don’t believe God cares who you support as long as you do it for the right reasons. It is not a sin to be ignorant in worldly matters.
For instance, there are those who support income redistribution out of a sincere belief that inequality is a major problem facing the United States, and then there are those who envy the rich and want to tear them down out of spite. That they end up with the same policy proposal does not make both groups equally condemnable; the second group is malicious while the first is merely wrong.
Things that make you go hmmm.
I agree with the seminarian that @eodmom quoted. I am more interested in what Trump is doing for the country than who he was when or how he responds to his critics (enemies). I don’t trust that most of what he says is reported accurately. I do trust that God has granted me the intelligence to make a decision based on my perception of right and wrong as taught by Him, even if the issues are complex.
You used the word ‘venal’ a couple of times in your description of Trump. Do you really think he is on the take? Venal generally is associated with bribery. This is how rumors get started.
God’s direction in how I make certain choices is a personal thing and while I can be personally convicted in my politics based on my faith and understanding of scripture, it is not politically edifying to use it as sole justification for my position when others come to other conclusions with access to the same information.
I think it’s worth discussing and debating, but not for beating others over the head for being lesser christians.
Now that’s rich coming from me. I’m well aware that I’m aggressive, can be a bit insulting, and proceed with so much ill-founded confidence it’s amazing I have any humility at all. I like to argue. I like the back and forth. Sometimes I learn something. Sometimes I hope someone learns something from me.
God does want out of the debate, and should be. But the Democrats want to weaponize religious philosophy against Trump. “We can do what we do because we make no claim other than to worship progressivism, but you….” So it is left to simply vote for what best meets your needs — as always. Persons of faith have to assess how the particular policies of Candidate A versus Candidate B affect their own religious freedom first, then the tendency to promote a more or less moral society, second. I see nothing in progressivism that promotes a moral society so its an easy call for me.
It was generally accepted at the time of the country’s founding that the success of the revolution and the way the different religious sects worked together was a sign that it was God’s will that the USA be formed as nation based on the idea of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Assuming that is true, then politicians should supported, when they promote policies that are faithful to the founding and denounced when they don’t.
I should not have used “venal.”
I live in fear that people don’t know when I am kidding and/or merely being cute. Woody Allen made a joke about the rabbi whose sense of humor launched a thousand pogroms…. hmmm.
Re the OP title:
I wouldn’t be surprised if he does.
My take as a former Catholic and a current American is that God (assuming He exists) concerns Himself with how we treat Him and how we treat our fellow man. Regarding how we treat each other, it is individual actions or lack of action that count most, and not second or third order consequences.
It is legal to have an abortion in the US – and in most other Western countries. If you believe that God judges us in the collective, that’s a big deal.
But Testament 2: The Sequel suggests that we are judged as individuals. If abortion/murder is wrong, don’t do it. Prevent it in specific instances where you can, but your responsibility for a given abortion or abortions in general is so tenuously linked to your general election vote that…well, let’s just say that if you don’t have any more pressing concerns for your immortal soul you’re a better man than…pretty much everyone.
Jesus, knowing that Man was made in the image of God and was to have His word written on his heart, was telling the spies that their expressed concern was of secondary importance. Their true allegiance was to be to God.
That’s some high order nosce te ipsum right there.
Bart Marcois, who did outreach and fundraising for Romney (particularly among Mormons) starting in 20003, now thinks that Romney betrays Republicans and Utah.
His reasons are relevant to this discussion:
When Kennedy was elected it was in spite of fears that he would give preference and power to Catholicism.
Trump’s watery, vanilla religiosity is the kind I like best in a politician – not least because it isn’t a virtue signal or a claim on a sectarian constituency.
Easy. What offends God more, insulting Democrats or killing babies? Biblical heroes were imperfect, too.
…and modest, too
God wants us to be Christ-like, and advance His kingdom here on earth.
The rest, well, that’s just not that important.
Consider this. In both the American Revolution and the American Civil War, both sides were 100% convinced that God was on their side.
They were all wrong. God is on God’s side. It’s not our duty to rope Him into our cause, it’s our duty to align our cause as much as possible with Him.
And a quote that I’ve used as a life beacon for many years comes to mind here:
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” – Anne Lamont
I see a certain consistency between Christianity and the American Ideal. The basis for that lies in the individual and individual action. Trump as POTUS does far less to interfere with the existence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of individual fulfillment for every American than any other potential leader in plain sight. We have just over four years to conjure up a successor to continue Trump’s legacy. We are not approaching perfection. I do not see God’s will in those who will force Americans to live their lives in some specific collective mode.
I see this too, but I am distrustful of it as the Bible is very hierarchical and king-conscious; might it be that we Americanize God because we are Americans?
Collective cooperation is not a bad thing as long as it is not mandatory. Christianity involves a process of individuals striving for a form of perfection, that form involves learning to distinguish right from wrong and then choosing the right. Nothing in that says those individuals cannot still be choosing different right things. Factual conditions and events recorded in the Bible are only a snapshot in time and certainly don’t show us the conditions in which we live. I’m no expert on Christian theology but this is what I see.