Lux Lucet

The Bible distinguishes knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the ideas taught in Scripture either by direct statement or by implication. Wisdom, on the other hand, is the correct application of knowledge to the particular men and circumstances that we encounter in our lives.

As a way of getting them to apply their knowledge, John Robbins sometimes would tell people they needed to decide what is more important, what is less important, and what is not important at all. This approach can be a helpful way for Christians to think through a host of different issues, including the decision how to vote in elections.

And given the stakes inherent in any presidential election, maybe especially this election, it is important for Christians to have a Biblical framework for evaluating the candidates.

For my part, I have struggled with the election more than any other. There are numerous reason why I would never consider voting for Hillary Clinton. Some of them I have outlined below.

On the other hand, the thought of voting for Trump presents challenges as well.

One Christian writer, put off as he is by the release of a video with Trump making lewd sexual remarks, has equated support for Trump with idolatry and a decision that harms our witness for Christ, “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord” (Andy Crouch, Speak Truth to Trump).

Over at World, Marvin Olasky penned Unfit for power, an editorial calling for Trump to step aside as Republican nominee.

One suspects that the arguments put forth by both these writers reflect the thoughts of many Christians. And it is not hard to understand their agreement with Crouch and Olasky.

My view is different. As I shall argue, I believe both these gentlemen miss the mark with their commentaries. Given the circumstances, In my opinion a vote for Trump, rather than being idolatry, may very well be an act of good judgment.

Concerning the call for Trump to step down, it’s worth asking whether there have been any calls from World for Mrs. Clinton to step aside for her many, blatant and serious crimes, not to mention several other significant problems that make her unfit for office.

Before presenting my argument, there are a few points I would like to make.

First, what I say in this post is an opinion. I do not offer it up as a necessary deduction from Scripture. I do not claim it as knowledge. As one who’s spent more than a year struggling with what to think about Trump, and to some extent avoiding commentary on the subject, I can appreciate Crouch’s and Olasky’s concerns and do not doubt their good intentions.

Further, there are many good brothers and sisters in Christ who, as a matter of conscience believe they cannot vote for Trump. This post is not aimed at them. If someone believes voting for Trump is wrong, he should by no means go against his conscious. To do so would be sin.

Third, I acknowledge my own biases, sinfulness and ignorance and realize that all of these shortcomings color any analysis that I do. A Hillary Clinton administration will be, in my view, a heavy burden upon the American people. Perhaps my own intense dislike for her has unfairly colored by assessment of Trump. In light of this, it is possible that I am wrong and those who oppose a Trump presidency are right. That I will leave for others to decide.

Fourth, I write what I do in good faith in the hope that the body of Christ may find it edifying. It is not my intention to castigate those who come to conclusions that are at odds with mine. And if I’ve made errors in my reasoning, perhaps at least some of what I’ve set forth will stimulate thought concerning the election choice facing the nation.

What is More Important

Character matters. When we look at what the Bible has to say about the qualifications of church officers, we find that character issues factor prominently. Paul describes the qualifications of the office of bishop (elder) as follows:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence…not a novice. Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside…(1 Timothy 3:2-7).

Of course, the office of elder and the office of the presidency are not the same office. One pertains the church, the other to civil government. But since both the church and the civil government are instituted by God, it seems reasonable to look to the qualifications for elders to help us decide what to look for in a president.

This list is very problematic for Mrs. Clinton, who, being a woman, certainly is not qualified to serve as elder. And, as the John Knox quotation I cite below tells us, this also disqualifies her from the presidency.

When it comes to Donald Trump, well let’s just say he falls short in several of the areas Paul lists. For my part, I would not support him for elder in my church and I doubt most other Evangelicals would either.

Here are a few of the objections that can be brought against Trump:

• He has been divorced twice.
  
• He had an affair with Marla Maples while still married to his first wife Ivana.
  
• He has been involved in the casino business, a line of work that inconsistent with Christian ethics.
  
• He is known to have a foul mouth.
  
• He famously stated that he doesn’t remember asking God forgiveness.
  

These facts certainly weaken any argument for Trump as president.

On the other hand, as Paul tells us in Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Here Paul does not distinguish between Christian and non-Christian governors. What he says applies with equal force to rulers who are believers as well as those who are not. To put it another way, just because a civil magistrate is not a believer, this does not undermine his rightful, God-given authority.

Another implication of this passage is that whoever is elected president, will hold that office as an appointment from God. Even if God intends to punish this nation with a Hillary Clinton presidency.

So just where do we look to determine the character of the candidate. His actions in his personal life, certainly. But not that only. It seems to me that you have to look at his ideas for “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he.”

So let’s compare their qualifications by citing their ideas.

First, let us consider this issue of truth. Most would agree it is pretty important. If we cannot believe a man’s words, it doesn’t much matter if he speaks with the eloquence of Pericles. He’s nothing but sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

The Bible has a lot to say about truth. The Ninth Commandment prohibits false witness bearing. Jesus told his disciples that they truth would make them free. Quoting the prophet Zechariah, Paul enjoined the Ephesians, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor.”

Lies are the opposite of truth. Satan, we are told, is the father of them. And for Hillary Clinton, they are all too familiar territory.

Not that we really needed Wikileaks to confirm it, but according to Mrs. Clinton, politicians “need both a public and a private position.” In other words, Mrs. Clinton believes in lying as a matter of course. This claim of hers means that prima facie people have every right to disbelieve anything she says in public. This sinful doublemindedness alone makes her unfit for the presidency.

To make matter worse, Mrs. Clinton attempted to defend her remarks by appealing to, of all people, Abe Lincoln. This was too much even for the Washington Post. As Aaron Blake pointed out in his article, Lincoln may have used different arguments to persuade people to back him in the cause of abolishing slavery, but his public goal never was in doubt. Such is not the case with Mrs. Clinton, who apparently thinks nothing of telling the public one thing about her plans but her elite private donors something else.

In all my years of observing politics I’ve never seen anything close the systematic mendacity exhibited by both Bill and Hillary Clinton. And it is important for the future of the country that she not be rewarded for her outright fraud.

Trump, on the other hand has a habit of telling what are, at least from the perspective of the elite, uncomfortable truths. For example, he referred to the Iraq as a “disaster” and a “big fat mistake.” He’s called out the Federal Reserve for being “political” (it is), and referred to called the stock market as a “bubble” (true that). He’s pointed out Hillary’s plan to flood the country with taxpayer subsidized refugees and immigrants and criticized ObamaCare as “catastrophic.”

All of these are major issues about which the establishment, Republican and Democrat alike, has spent decades either avoiding discussion altogether or, when the occasional statement is made, lying to the American people.

And this leads to a second area of comparison, the respect for the rule of law. It was only a few months ago when we watched as FBI Director James Comey settled for giving Hillary Clinton a good tongue lashing for crimes that would have sent anyone else to jail for the rest of his life. It is the single biggest miscarriage of justice I have ever witnessed.

If it is allowed to stand, if the American people reward Mrs. Clinton with the presidency, this act very likely will permanently establish the principle of a two-tiered justice system in this nation: one rule for the elite, and another for the rest of us peons.

And you don’t have to take my word for it. A recently released Wikileaks email quotes a lawyer communicating with Clinton staffers as saying none of the attorneys in her circle of friends,

can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents…It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc. (emphasis mine).

Ask yourself this, if Hillary is this brazen while seeking office, what do you think she and her basket of deplorable enablers will do once in office.

Trump, on the other hand, has promised to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Hillary’s activities. One suspects that these statements scare the living daylights out of the power elite, Republican and Democrat alike. In my opinion, the Republicans aren’t so much afraid of Trump losing as of him winning. For a Trump victory just might shine light in places that they would rather have remain in the dark.

Third, foreign policy is pretty important too. And Mrs. Clinton’s record is not so good here. She was a big influence behind US interventions in Syria and Libya. How’s that working out?

She’s threatened to “ring China with missile defense” and her arrogant assertion that “[Bashar] Assad must go” threatens to involve the US in war with Russia in the Middle East.

Trump, in contrast, has stated he’d be able to get along with Putin.

For my part, avoiding WWIII could be construed as slightly important. And Trump appears to be the candidate best able to do this.

Fourth, the Bible teaches us that we can become guilty by association. The Apostle John warns believers about the dangers of joining with false teachers. He writes, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [the doctrine of Christ], do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 10, 11).

This warning is not only applicable in matters concerning the church, but is a principle that applies in life generally.

In light of this, the fact that Mrs. Clinton has all the wrong friends and Trump has all the right enemies says something about the two.

Consider this: Hillary is adored by the press Wall Street investment banks, and notorious globalist George Soros.

Of the 100 top newspapers in the country, all of them endorsed Mrs. Clinton. When was the last time you had anything good to say about the mainstream media. If you’re like me, it’s been a while.

Likewise the business community has shunned Trump, with The Wall Street Journal
reporting that no Fortune 100 CEO has backed the Republican nominee. The corruption of the American business community is at epic levels. With their support of crony capitalism, secret trade deals, and gay marriage, businesses are no longer the rock-ribbed bastions of good sense that they are perceived to be, but have succumbed to the corruption that is endemic in our society.

A further aspect of Clinton’s guilt by association concerns her conduct in defending Bill Clinton’s sexual affairs. According to some sources, Hillary played a key role in suppressing the “bimbo eruptions” that took place during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign. As Megan Twohey reports, there is debate about Hillary’s degree of involvement in the Clinton campaign’s efforts to discredit Bill’s sexual victims. One view is,

But privately, she [Hillary] embraced the Clinton campaign’s aggressive strategy of counterattack: Women who claimed to have had sexual encounters with Mr. Clinton would become targets of digging and discrediting – tactics that women’s rights advocates frequently denounce.

If it is true that Mrs. Clinton played a role in aggressively attacking and discrediting actual victims of sexual assault by her husband, then she has made herself guilty of the acts by association. A point Donald Trump made when he called her an “enabler”.

The elite’s war on Trump has gotten so obvious and so intense that noted blogger Michael Snyder recently posted a piece about it.

But while the elites, even the Republican party elites, have been sharpening their knives for Trump from the start, the New York billionaire has found the ear of ordinary Americans.

In my conversations with Trump supporters, they are not raving racists or ignorant rednecks as the mainstream portrays them. But ordinary Americans who are rightfully concerned about the direction of the nation and believe Trump is the candidate best able to do something about it. Whether they are right in this belief is another matter. But their support for Trump is not hard to understand. Neither is it appropriate to smear their character.

Fifth, immigration is one of the signature issues of the 2016 campaign, and one where Trump has a clear edge on Mrs. Clinton. In fact, Trump’s signature issue is building a wall along the US/Mexico border. For my part, I disagree with this approach to immigration reform, preferring Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship.

But even where Trump goes wrong on immigration, he at least understands that any immigration policy must be designed with the best interests of Americans in mind. His website states that, “A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”

On the other hand, Hillary’s website has a header in Spanish on her immigration page. There she promises, among other things, she promises amnesty and to allow families to sign up for Obamacare, regardless of their immigration status. What are the chances that many of these people will qualify for Obamacare subsidies? If you said 100%, go to the head of the class.

On top of that, there is no shutoff valve in Hillary’s plan. After everyone is amnestied and Obamacared, there is nothing to stop a further 10, 15 or 20 million illegal immigrants from streaming into the country, demanding amnesty themselves along with various other goodies such as subsidized Obamacare, while American’s who make too much for a subsidy get to foot the bill. As Bill Clinton has said, “it’s the craziest thing in the world.”

Sixth, religion is no small thing either. Mrs. Clinton is a liberal Methodist who chose as her running mate a Jesuit educated Roman Catholic, who, has received a warm write up in the Jesuit publication America, praised Laudato Si, Pope Francis’ globalist, environmentalist encyclical, and claimed he cried when the Antichrist pope showed up at the Capitol and proceeded to lecture Congress and the American people about globalism, immigration and the environment.

Nominal protestant though he is, Trump, instead of praising the pope, actually pushed back on him. In my lifetime, I have never another presidential candidate do this. When the pope criticized Trump, albeit not by name, for his stance on immigration and building a border wall,, Trump called the pontiff “disgraceful.” And indeed he is.

Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate has rather confusedly called himself an “evangelical Catholic.” At any rate, he’s no Jesuit. And while he was governor, he took on the Roman Church-State when the Archdiocese of Indianapolis wanted to resettle Syrian refugees in Indiana.

Seventh, it is unchristian to support a woman for the office of president, but Mrs. Clinton has been gunning for the presidency for years. This is not a small issue, despite the fact that stating so is almost universally condemned today as hopelessly sexist.

When it comes to opposing the rule of women, John Knox said it best,

To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumelious to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally it is the subversion of good order, and of all equity and justice (The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women).

It would be hard to imagine a more unpopular stance in today’s world to argue against the notion of a female president. Yet even atheist Ayn Rand knew it was a bad dea, telling Phil Donahue, “A woman commander in chief? Unspeakable!”

Additional issues could be added to this list: taxes, Obamacare, and federal appointments, including the Supreme Court. And on every one of them Trump is the better candidate.

Worth noting here is that I am using comparative language. When I say Trump is better on the issues than Mrs. Clinton, I am not saying I am in agreement with all that Trump stands for. Some of his stances are good, others not so much.

But at least with Trump, there’s something to work with. When it comes to Mrs. Clinton, her policy initiatives are an unmitigated disaster.

What is Less Important

The tabloid stuff that makes big headlines is a prime example of what is less important. A lot of people don’t want to take the time to understand the issues. But a juicy sex scandal, that’s the stuff inquiring minds naturally want to know.

And Trump’s enemies are than happy to oblige them.

It started with Alicia Machado. When she went silent after the press began to dig into her background, a new line of attack was needed in the form of the Billy Bush video.

And new allegations are coming out almost daily from women claiming Trump did this or that to them.

The reason why I consider attacks of this sort to be less important is that making unsupported allegations is easy to do. Anyone can claim such and such happened – whether yesterday or thirty years ago it matters not – and make a big splash. And even if the claim is later refuted as false, the big initial impact in the news cycles remains.

It is also fair to ask why none of the women making the allegations attempted to sue Trump for his alleged acts of sexual assault at the time they supposedly happened. Trump has among the very deepest pockets in the nation. Were there actual evidence he was guilty of doing the things he is said to have done, the victim would have been primed for the biggest payday of her life. Yet, at least as far as I know, none of the women accusing Trump ever attempted to bring criminal charges or a civil suit.

But sometimes the tabloid stuff can become more important. If the charges go to issues of character and are backed up by evidence, they can become a big deal, and rightfully so.

It is Trump’s vulgar comments on the Billy Bush video have created the strongest backlash against him yet, especially among Christian writers. And one cannot fault them for being offended.

So we have a bit of a problem here with Donald Trump. Based on the more important criteria listed above, Trump is the better candidate. But what about the tabloid allegations. They are damaging to his character. But are they sufficient, as some believe, to call for him to step down as Republican nominee?

What is Not Important at All

The fear of voting for the lesser of two evils is a non-issue.

Unless Jesus Christ is on the ballot, and I’m pretty sure he’s not running this year, every time we cast a ballot we are faced with the prospect of voting for the lesser of two evils. This would be the case even if Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, David son of Jesse or Moses himself were in the race.

We are sinners every one. And this goes for those who run for public office too. The choice is never between perfect saint and wretched sinner, but between one fallible man and another.

Some might ask, “Why then vote at all, if all we have is a choice of one sinner versus another?” The short answer is that this is God’s approved method for filling public offices. The New Testament church voted for its officers. And this principle applies to church government as well.