Christians must not try and present an unrepentant, rich, old ruler as a “born again” Christian- AMEN!
Believers should not dismiss Trump’s licentious behavior by pointing to the Democrats "poster child president" (Bill Clinton or JFK); as gross immoral behavior does not justify gross immoral behavior- AMEN!
Disciples must not confuse an apology/worldly sorrow for genuine repentance (see 2 Cor. 7:10; Psalm 51).
BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN that Christians are only left with two options: 1) To either vote for Hillary Clinton (an immoral candidate); 2) OR to vote for a third party/fill in. Elections are matters of wisdom and conscience. In this regard this political election is no different than the last nine or so you have participated in.
Pray, seek God’s Word, educate yourself, listen to wise counsel; especially from Word-governed believers- At the end of the day you must vote (or not vote) according to your conscience! Don’t let the Gospel Coalition or any other source tell you who you MUST vote for. Christian liberty is just that. Russell Moore and Collin Hansen do not officially speak on behalf of the Church; (Protestants do not have a Pope)!!! Christian teachers and authors should highlight any and all pertinent biblical principles and historical facts but must work hard to not go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).
In response to Collin Hansen's Washington Post Op-ed Dr. Roberty Gagnon wrote this balanced response. It is well worth your time.
"Here's a classic example of how an evangelical Christian ought not to conduct him- or herself in writing an editorial for a secular left-wing publication, provided to us by Collin Hansen, the editorial director for the Gospel Coalition (an editorial which incidentally GC should repudiate for its tone and sheer offensiveness). "The 2016 presidential election will be remembered as the last spasm of energy from the Religious Right before its overdue death.... Woe to the hypocrites who hold the most powerful leader in the world to a lower standard than they do the searching young believer who desires to serve God and neighbor."
He insults as "hypocrites" any Christians who dare to disagree with with his perspective on Dump-Trump-Hello-Hillary for the next 8 years (that's right: 4 will likely get you 8, given the cultural changes that will be implemented through law and executive order).
At he same time, he does the reprehensible Washington Post's bidding by expressing glee at the alleged demise of the entire "Religious Right" which is one of the few movements that has stood against abortion and the destruction of the male-female foundation for sexual ethics and marriage, and for the preservation of religious liberties. News flash for Mr. Hansen: As far as the Washington Post is concerned, if you are solidly opposed to abortion, believe firmly in a male-female foundation for sexual ethics and don't agree that a person can really change birth sex, and are a supporter of religious freedom protections, you are part of the Religious Right. You are being defined by your opponents, whether you like it or not, because to them the central issues that define you are your positions on "gay rights," marriage, abortion, and religious liberty. (Hint: Your "liberal" position on immigration won't save you.)
This is a bullying piece, designed to close off discussion with any who have the moral faculty to think differently from Mr. Hansen's own perspective (or, apparently, that of Russell Moore who is copiously cited in the article).
Since Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Lord's Anointed, a Persian ruler with a harem and a person bent on world conquest, I guess he too must be a hypocrite of the highest order. Or possibly Isaiah understood that, for all his moral failings, Cyrus was at least a considerable sight better than the Babylonian alternative so far as political policy is concerned.
Let's extend Mr. Hansen's principal (always refuse to vote against a candidate with problematic moral character, no matter what the election alternative) to its logical conclusion with a point I made in a previous post: Imagine, if you will, a run-off between Trump and Pol Pot (or, if you like, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao). One or the other candidate will be elected. By Mr. Hansen's reasoning any evangelical Christian who voted for Trump in the run-off would be a hypocrite because of Trump's moral imperfections, even if such a vote was made for the purpose of staving off mass exterminations. Doesn't such a conclusion sound absurd?
Yes, character does matter. But as a principle it can't be isolated from all other considerations. When two candidates have equally bad character but one candidate's policies will lead to massive persecution of Christians and the destruction of constitutional liberties, then "character matters" has to be evaluated in that light. His character flaws are not nearly as likely to lead to further inroads in the killing of the unborn, the destruction of natural marriage, and the suppression of our religious liberties. Like Obama, only more so, Clinton will go after the schools (including Christian colleges), the workplace, speech protections, you name it. Don't forget: In Clinton's eyes you are a "deplorable" and you will be treated accordingly. Don't let your just disgust for Trump's comments make you lose sight of that.
Martin Luther King himself is known to have had numerous immoral dalliances with women (see David J. Garrow, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on King, Bearing the Cross). That's terrible and a blight on his moral influence. He also plagiarized substantial portions of his Ph.D. dissertation. Nevertheless,I didn't hear evangelicals charging other evangelicals with hypocrisy for failing to rise up and oppose a national holiday in King's name because of these conspicuous personal moral failings (nor should they have). (Not that I'm equating King and Trump but rather making the limited point that significant moral failings do not, in and of themselves, justify evangelical dissociation.)
The church can avoid actual hypocrisy by criticizing Trump vigorously for his character flaws and calling for his repentance while pushing him to uphold his oft-repeated commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, preserve and advance religious liberty protections and exemptions, uphold traditional marriage, and make Scalia-like court appointments. Whatever harm he has done in his personal comments and actions (his 11-year old comments he himself has repudiated) pales in comparison to the harm that Clinton/Kaine will do to the unborn and to all our families.
Ironically he connects "the latest evidence of Trump’s depravity" (which we already knew about, these 11-year old comments reveal something new only to the ill-informed) with the attacks on InterVarsity for its policy on upholding male-female marriage: "If you don’t see the connection between these two developments, then you’ll miss the story that will define evangelical unity and witness for the next generation." I'll tell you another connection: A Clinton/Kaine administration will so continue the oppressive trajectory of the "GLBTQ" assault on our rights that InterVarsity within 8 years will be booted off virtually every college campus in the country. Want to see religious liberty in this country largely destroyed over the next 4 to 8 years? Do something that will insure Clinton's election this year.
I haven't turned into a masochist this election cycle seeking the destruction of our religious liberties, the sanctity of life, and obliteration of marriage at any price. The Persian Cyrus was at least as bad as Trump and he could still be used by God to accomplish some good things for God's people that made him a significant sight better than the Babylonian alternative. I find the argument that we should just "trust God" that he will get us out of the mess that we create for ourselves by not voting against Clinton without scriptural and moral merit. We have a way out of Clinton; it is with a candidate that few of us wanted and have repeatedly criticized (and will continue to criticize), with many moral flaws (like his opponent) but whose policies are far more friendly to our concerns and the health of the nation than the alternative.
Having said all this, I haven't finally decided to vote for Trump. I hate that 40% of Republican voters left us with this kind of candidate when they could have chosen Ted Cruz. However, I am certainly not going to be bullied and insulted by Mr. Hansen for daring to consider the option of voting for Trump, as the only viable alternative to apocalyptic Clinton, in this time of very difficult decision-making."
He insults as "hypocrites" any Christians who dare to disagree with with his perspective on Dump-Trump-Hello-Hillary for the next 8 years (that's right: 4 will likely get you 8, given the cultural changes that will be implemented through law and executive order).
At he same time, he does the reprehensible Washington Post's bidding by expressing glee at the alleged demise of the entire "Religious Right" which is one of the few movements that has stood against abortion and the destruction of the male-female foundation for sexual ethics and marriage, and for the preservation of religious liberties. News flash for Mr. Hansen: As far as the Washington Post is concerned, if you are solidly opposed to abortion, believe firmly in a male-female foundation for sexual ethics and don't agree that a person can really change birth sex, and are a supporter of religious freedom protections, you are part of the Religious Right. You are being defined by your opponents, whether you like it or not, because to them the central issues that define you are your positions on "gay rights," marriage, abortion, and religious liberty. (Hint: Your "liberal" position on immigration won't save you.)
This is a bullying piece, designed to close off discussion with any who have the moral faculty to think differently from Mr. Hansen's own perspective (or, apparently, that of Russell Moore who is copiously cited in the article).
Since Isaiah referred to Cyrus as the Lord's Anointed, a Persian ruler with a harem and a person bent on world conquest, I guess he too must be a hypocrite of the highest order. Or possibly Isaiah understood that, for all his moral failings, Cyrus was at least a considerable sight better than the Babylonian alternative so far as political policy is concerned.
Let's extend Mr. Hansen's principal (always refuse to vote against a candidate with problematic moral character, no matter what the election alternative) to its logical conclusion with a point I made in a previous post: Imagine, if you will, a run-off between Trump and Pol Pot (or, if you like, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao). One or the other candidate will be elected. By Mr. Hansen's reasoning any evangelical Christian who voted for Trump in the run-off would be a hypocrite because of Trump's moral imperfections, even if such a vote was made for the purpose of staving off mass exterminations. Doesn't such a conclusion sound absurd?
Yes, character does matter. But as a principle it can't be isolated from all other considerations. When two candidates have equally bad character but one candidate's policies will lead to massive persecution of Christians and the destruction of constitutional liberties, then "character matters" has to be evaluated in that light. His character flaws are not nearly as likely to lead to further inroads in the killing of the unborn, the destruction of natural marriage, and the suppression of our religious liberties. Like Obama, only more so, Clinton will go after the schools (including Christian colleges), the workplace, speech protections, you name it. Don't forget: In Clinton's eyes you are a "deplorable" and you will be treated accordingly. Don't let your just disgust for Trump's comments make you lose sight of that.
Martin Luther King himself is known to have had numerous immoral dalliances with women (see David J. Garrow, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on King, Bearing the Cross). That's terrible and a blight on his moral influence. He also plagiarized substantial portions of his Ph.D. dissertation. Nevertheless,I didn't hear evangelicals charging other evangelicals with hypocrisy for failing to rise up and oppose a national holiday in King's name because of these conspicuous personal moral failings (nor should they have). (Not that I'm equating King and Trump but rather making the limited point that significant moral failings do not, in and of themselves, justify evangelical dissociation.)
The church can avoid actual hypocrisy by criticizing Trump vigorously for his character flaws and calling for his repentance while pushing him to uphold his oft-repeated commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, preserve and advance religious liberty protections and exemptions, uphold traditional marriage, and make Scalia-like court appointments. Whatever harm he has done in his personal comments and actions (his 11-year old comments he himself has repudiated) pales in comparison to the harm that Clinton/Kaine will do to the unborn and to all our families.
Ironically he connects "the latest evidence of Trump’s depravity" (which we already knew about, these 11-year old comments reveal something new only to the ill-informed) with the attacks on InterVarsity for its policy on upholding male-female marriage: "If you don’t see the connection between these two developments, then you’ll miss the story that will define evangelical unity and witness for the next generation." I'll tell you another connection: A Clinton/Kaine administration will so continue the oppressive trajectory of the "GLBTQ" assault on our rights that InterVarsity within 8 years will be booted off virtually every college campus in the country. Want to see religious liberty in this country largely destroyed over the next 4 to 8 years? Do something that will insure Clinton's election this year.
I haven't turned into a masochist this election cycle seeking the destruction of our religious liberties, the sanctity of life, and obliteration of marriage at any price. The Persian Cyrus was at least as bad as Trump and he could still be used by God to accomplish some good things for God's people that made him a significant sight better than the Babylonian alternative. I find the argument that we should just "trust God" that he will get us out of the mess that we create for ourselves by not voting against Clinton without scriptural and moral merit. We have a way out of Clinton; it is with a candidate that few of us wanted and have repeatedly criticized (and will continue to criticize), with many moral flaws (like his opponent) but whose policies are far more friendly to our concerns and the health of the nation than the alternative.
Having said all this, I haven't finally decided to vote for Trump. I hate that 40% of Republican voters left us with this kind of candidate when they could have chosen Ted Cruz. However, I am certainly not going to be bullied and insulted by Mr. Hansen for daring to consider the option of voting for Trump, as the only viable alternative to apocalyptic Clinton, in this time of very difficult decision-making."
ARTICLE by Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon
No comments:
Post a Comment