Labels

Response to Eric Metaxas



Appearing Wednesday in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal was an Eric Metaxas piece 1) encouraging Christians to vote for Trump and 2) insinuating that Christians who do not vote will be judged by God.  My position for some time now has been that there is no good option for Christians.  I think a bible-believing Christian can easily look at candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and decide neither is fit for office.  I believe a bible-believing Christian can also look at the two options and make a reasonable determination that one is slightly better than the other.  If you have a heart for refugees, you may vote Clinton despite her election meaning damage to the pro-life movement and religious liberty.  If you believe Americans are losing theirability to practice their religious faith through all aspects of their lives and the importance of the Supreme Court to pro-life issues, you may plan on voting Trump despite his many character failures and inane positions on immigration.  It’s my opinion that we need to show grace to those individuals who vote differently than us despite a common faith.  Please keep in mind, humbly voting for “the lesser of two evils” is different than fanatical support of either candidate.  I would call into question one’s understanding of scripture if they are fanatically supporting either major candidate given that they both have very serious red flags.

McMullin
Some evangelical Christians may reason that Gary Johnson is the best choice despite calling religious liberty a “black hole” and his questionable knowledge of foreign issues.  Others, like myself, may decide that the best way to vote their conscience is to vote/write-in Evan McMullin despite incredibly low notoriety and slim, but not impossible, chance at being elected president.  Yet others may decide not to cast a vote at all, understanding they have a precious right they are choosing not to exercise.  Again, we as Christians need to extend grace to all those who make a different decision than us as long as they have humbly come before God in prayer and studied scripture to help their guidance.  As I’ve said many times over the past months, there is no good choice for Christians.

Metaxas, however, has made his point of view perfectly clear.  He believes that voting Trump is the only option available to evangelical Christians, despite the thousands-plus reasons he should not be president.  Metaxas is doing what is now known as condemndorsing Trump; a combination of condemning him, yet endorsing him.  I believe Metaxas has come to a very reasonable conclusion, but I greatly depart with him that voting Trump is the only acceptable option before God.

I also find some great fault in Metaxas’ reasoning.  For example, he argues:
Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them. Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.
Here's my initial problem with this reasoning: His point is that neither candidate is truly “pure evil;”  however, much of the argument used by Trump supporters who recognize his failures has been that Clinton is, in fact, evil.  The argument from the Trump campaign has long been that Clinton is truly so bad that even a deeply flawed Trump can be voted for.

What Metaxas is falling victim to is this: Just because one candidate might be less unacceptable than the other does not suddenly make either candidate acceptable.  The continued missed point here is that both Clinton and Trump are capable of causing serious, long-lasting harm to the Republic.  The argument that Trump might (and only might) cause less harm does not mean a Christian must sacrifice his or her beliefs to offer support or even a vote to that candidate.
Metaxas also belittles the idea of one’s conscience.  Conscience, after all, is the inner voice that tells us what is right and what is wrong.  As Christians, our conscience is impacted by the Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit is convicting us that someone like Donald Trump does not deserve our support, then that pretty much settles it.  Again, I believe each of us may be convicted differently, so I won’t argue with whatever someone believes God has placed on his or her heart, but that doesn’t suddenly mean that there is only one acceptable vote in God’s eye.

In demeaning one’s conscience, Metaxas also specifically calls out abstaining from voting.  I’ve said this on occasion to others, but not sure I’ve ever written it: I don’t believe Jesus would vote.  I don’t think he would even register to.  His ministry and kingdom is so outside of human rulers that I don’t think he would much care.  “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” is such a bold statement of indifference to government.  Scripture repeatedly tells us to obey government to the extent it doesn’t coerce us to violate our Christian practice, but there are no calls to “take Israel back” from Rome or “Make Jerusalem Great Again” slogans.  I truly believe that if Jesus were an American that he would not vote.  He would be more concerned about changing people hearts and instructing them to follow him.

Later, Metaxas argues that great individuals like William Wilburforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer did incredible great while being flawed individuals.  This also sounds like Sean Hannity comparing Trump to David.  I want to point out a few things.  First, Wilburforce and Bonhoeffer demonstrated great Christians faith during trying times.  They stood up against government tyranny over the individual, be it slavery or Nazism.  Meanwhile, Trump talks about a powerful government and has repeated offered ideas that destroy individual liberty or grant more power to the federal government.  Second, I have no doubt that Wilburforce and Bonhoeffer were repentant individuals when it came to sin.  Trump has specifically stated he is not in need of forgiveness.  The flaws of men like King David, Wilburforce, and Bonhoeffer are flaws of men deeply submissive to God.  Donald Trump is not.  This argument is similar to the one that God can used anyone to reach His desired ends.  Obviously that's true, but that same logic can be used to argue for a Hillary Clinton vote.

This has been a devastating election for evangelical Christians, which is both bad and good.  It's bad because we've seen some longtime evangelical leaders go all in behind a horrible man out of belief he can give them something in return.  Big names like Jerry Falwell, Jr. and Pat Robertson have bent over backwards to support Trump and defend the many terrible things he's said and done.  Yes this election, I believe, have revealed the character of the new evangelical leaders.  Folks like Russell Moore and Albert Mohler have stood firm this entire time, as has Joe Carter.  Wayne Grudem, after writing a sad piece defending Trump's character, has repented and withdrawn his support.  Now even John Piper is weighing in.


We often hear how it's the difficult times that reveal character.  This election has exposed a lot of character.  There are those who are not willing to sacrifice their Christian witness for the sake of possible government goodies.  Others have begrudgingly lined up behind someone for very legitimate concerns of protecting life and religious liberty.  If you are in either of those two groups, I can respect your conclusion and reasoning.  But it's that third group I cannot respect.  The third group are those who believe they have it all figured out, and to do anything other than their example is to defy the Will of God.  If you are in that last group, repent.  I'm not asking you to change your vote, I'm simply asking you to change your heart.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment