If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for President of the United States, can you vote for him with a clear conscience? This election cycle may force conservatives—especially religious, social conservatives—to answer that question.
Here’s how I am currently thinking through that question as an evangelical theology professor who just coauthored a book on the conscience and the Christian. To answer the question, you first need to consider three other questions.
1. Does Donald Trump have good character and policies?
I get it that the United States of America is not electing a “pastor-in-chief” but a commander-in-chief. A presidential candidate does not need to sign off on my church’s doctrinal statement to earn my vote. But character matters immensely for leaders. If a presidential candidate is not trustworthy in other areas, how can we entrust him with the most influential governmental position in the world? That is why it is relevant to consider Trump’s character.
- Trump publicly brags about committing adultery.
- Trump mocks and disrespects people—women, the disabled, even prisoners of war.
- Trump lacks a pro-life record. He is not a pro-lifer. He can’t even defend the pro-life position.
- Trump is a con artist (e.g., Trump University).
- Trump is a demagogue. He appeals to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.
- Trump is shamelessly proud. He recently boasted, “Nobody reads the Bible more than me.” Yet he says that he has never asked God or others to forgive him for anything.
Trump is not morally qualified to lead a Boy Scout troop.
- Kevin DeYoung describes Trump as “an honor warrior without any real honor.”
- “My main problem,” explains Randy Alcorn, “is not that Donald Trump says what he thinks …. My problem is with what he actually thinks: especially his obsession with outward appearance, sexiness, superficiality, wealth, his own status and accomplishments, and his quickness to berate and insult people and seek revenge on his critics.”
Regarding Trump’s policies:
It is virtually impossible to discern what they are because (a) he repeatedly changes his opinions about policies, (b) he has only vaguely presented what his policies would be as president, and (c) we cannot trust what he says because of his character.- He lacks sound principles and judgment. The only principle that Trump seems to follow is self-interest. Like the dwarves in The Last Battle, Trump is for Trump.
- His rhetoric sounds more like a third-world strongman who claims only he can single-handedly fix everything that’s broken in Washington D.C. But would he stand under, uphold, and defend the U.S. Constitution? He gives us absolutely no reason to think so.
2. What does voting entail?
If you vote for a presidential candidate in America’s democratic republic, it does not mean that you fully endorse all of that person’s policies or that you think that person’s character is stellar. Here are two basic voting strategies:
- Vote for the least bad candidate who has the best chance of winning. The way you feel about this candidate can fall anywhere on a spectrum from enthusiasm to indifference to revulsion. For example, you may vote against a front runner by choosing the lesser of two evils.
- Vote for the best (or least bad) candidate, even if that person has a low chance of winning.
The first strategy is what I have employed up to this election cycle. As a political conservative, I have followed William F. Buckley Jr.’s famous utilitarian rule of thumb: vote for the rightward-most viable candidate.
But what if the two most viable candidates are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? This is the first election cycle where I have questioned Buckley’s rule. Is there some point at which Buckley’s rule no longer applies? Can the most viable candidates be so bad that you cannot dignify either of them with your vote? It’s like that episode from The Simpsons twenty years ago in which the two main presidential candidates were actually aliens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM
If the two most viable candidates were Hitler and Stalin, would you feel obligated to vote for the lesser evil? The strategy to vote for the lesser of two evils breaks down at some point. You must draw the line somewhere. The question is where to draw that line.
(I doubt Buckley himself would vote for Trump because Trump is not a true conservative. That is why Buckley ran as a viable but unelectable third-party candidate in 1965.)
“There are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office,” explains John Piper, such as endorsing racism or child-killing. Does knowingly voting for an egregiously immoral candidate ever make you complicit with that person’s evil once they take office?
If the general election features Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, then you will probably have four basic options (compare Tony Reinke’s more nuanced list):
- Don’t vote.
- Vote for Hillary Clinton.
- Vote for Donald Trump.
- Vote for someone else who has no chance to win.
This fall’s election may have huge consequences for abortion, religious liberty, the free market, gender issues, and more. That is why some political conservatives will argue, “Hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Donald Trump because Hillary Clinton will be worse. We don’t know what sort of policies Trump would adopt or what sort of Supreme Court justices he would appoint, but we do know what to expect from Hillary Clinton.” I get the logic, but there is one more factor to consider—your conscience.
3. What is a clear conscience?
Your conscience is your consciousness of what you believe is right and wrong. You have a clear conscience when your conscience does not accuse or condemn you for doing “wrong” but instead commends and defends you for doing “right.”
I placed quotation marks around “wrong” and “right” because your conscience could be wrong. Conscience is not infallible. It operates according to your moral standard, and your moral standard could be wrong. Some people support and practice abortion with a clear conscience, but their conscience is based on an immoral standard, namely, that it is not wrong to kill a baby in a mother’s womb if that baby’s mother so chooses. It is possible to sin with a clear conscience.
So can a person vote for Donald Trump with a clear conscience? Yes. But that doesn’t make the action right in God’s sight. Your conscience may tell you that voting for Trump is right while another person’s conscience may tell them that voting for Trump is wrong.
Sometimes you need to calibrate your conscience. Just like you need to calibrate a scale if it registers 150 pounds when you actually weigh only 145, sometimes you need to adjust or train your conscience to function according to God’s moral standards. You do this primarily by educating your conscience with truth. Some people may support and practice abortion with a clear conscience because they don’t understand scientifically that human life begins at conception.
But abortion is a relatively easy issue. It’s like the big E on the eye chart. Many ethical issues are more complex, such as whether and how to practice capital punishment or just war. Or whether to vote for Donald Trump if his opponent is Hillary Clinton.
People may reasonably disagree about how to strategically vote in America’s democratic republic:
- Will your conscience condemn you for not voting—for failing to act as a responsible citizen for the good of your family, community, and country?
- Will your conscience condemn you for voting for Hillary Clinton—for supporting someone who is arguably worse than Donald Trump (e.g., enthusiastically pro-abortion)?
- Will your conscience condemn you for voting for Donald Trump—for supporting the person I describe in the first part of this essay?
- Will your conscience condemn you for voting for someone else—for essentially “wasting” your vote on someone who has no chance to win?
There isn’t a good option. That’s what makes this a quandary. But is there a least bad option? Some conservatives will argue that we must choose the lesser of two evils. Others will argue that they can’t vote for Trump based on principle (we must not vote for evil, even if one candidate is not quite as evil as the other) and strategy (take a long-term view and rebuild the conservative movement rather than let Trump destroy it under the banner of the GOP).
What should you do? It’s in a theological category called “disputable matters.” Disputable matters aren’t unimportant, but fellow Christians who are members of the same church should be able to disagree on these issues and still have close fellowship with each other.
But remember: It is a sin to violate your conscience—even if your conscience is mistaken. If your conscience tells you that it is wrong to vote for Donald Trump and you vote for him anyway, then you sinned. So unless you can vote for Donald Trump without your conscience condemning you, then you should not vote for him.
It’s also worth thinking about how your conscience has worked in the past. Many conservatives argued in 1998 that the Lewinsky scandal disqualified Bill Clinton as president, but some of those same people are planning to vote for Trump. What changed?
So can you?
Back to the title of this essay: Can you vote for Donald Trump with a clear conscience? A handful of friends who gave me feedback on this essay told me that although they agree with what I write about Trump’s character and policies, they could still vote for Trump with a clear conscience. If the two main candidates were Trump and Hillary Clinton, they couldn’t vote for anyone other than Trump with a clear conscience because they would feel complicit in allowing Clinton to become president. They are intelligent conservatives for whom I have the highest respect.
But if I had to vote today, I could not vote for Donald Trump with a clear conscience. Perhaps others will persuade me to calibrate my conscience on this issue, but I doubt it. Maybe I’ll be able to think of voting as voting “against” and not voting “for” and thus agree with “the lesser of two evils” argument in order to mitigate greater evil. (One of my friends says that he would vote for “the Joker” as a way of voting against “Jezebel.”) Maybe Trump will turn from his ways and surround himself with a genuinely conservative team that he humbly listens to. But at this point, I can’t get around the obstacle that I would be enabling a destructive, grossly immoral candidate.
Can you?
Update on 7/29/2016: Reply to Wayne Grudem’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice”
Townhall just published an opinion piece by theologian Wayne Grudem: “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.” [Update: On 10/9/2016, Townhall took down Grudem’s article at his request. The previous hyperlink uses the Wayback Machine on Archive.org.] Grudem’s target audience in that essay is fellow Christian conservatives who can’t vote for Trump with a clear conscience.
- He opens the essay like this: “Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between ‘the lesser of two evils,’ the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate.”
- And later he writes, “‘But my conscience won’t let me vote for Donald Trump,’ some have told me. But I wonder if their consciences have considered the gravity of these destructive consequences that would come from a Clinton presidency.”
- He concludes, “When I look at it this way, my conscience, and my considered moral judgment tell me that I must vote for Donald Trump as the candidate who is most likely to do the most good for the United States of America.”
In reply:
- I love and respect Wayne Grudem, and I stand by my (mostly positive) review of his book Politics that I coauthored with my Dad in 2010. Grudem kindly shared critical feedback on a draft of my above essay in March 2016. He is one of the people I had in mind when I wrote this at the end of my essay: “A handful of friends who gave me feedback on this essay told me that although they agree with what I write about Trump’s character and policies, they could still vote for Trump with a clear conscience. If the two main candidates were Trump and Hillary Clinton, they couldn’t vote for anyone other than Trump with a clear conscience because they would feel complicit in allowing Clinton to become president. They are intelligent conservatives for whom I have the highest respect.”
- I agree with Justin Taylor: “This is anecdotal, but I’ll say it again: in my neck of the Reformed-evangelical world, there is a marked divergence between the #NeverHillary crowd (usually over 50) and the #NeverTrumpOrHillary folks (usually under 50). Certainly there are exceptions, but I’m struck by how both sides find their position to be morally clear, and not even a difficult position to hold.”
- I respect a kind of reasoning that says, “Trump has poor character, but he’s the lesser of two evils,” etc. There is a big difference between that stance and Jerry Falwell Jr.’s enthusiastically endorsing Trump as an outstanding candidate who models Christian character.
- So I respect Grudem’s view (though I think he is too generous to Trump re his character and competence), but I wish Grudem would frame the issue in a way that does not imply that Christians who cannot vote for Trump in good conscience are sinful and/or foolish.
- My main goal is not (a) to persuade people not to vote for Trump but instead (b) to encourage people not to sin against their conscience.
Further reply on 7/30/2016:
- I agree with the reasons some people gave for not finding Grudem’s essay persuasive:
- J. D. Crowley, who coauthored Conscience with me, wrote this in a Facebook comment yesterday: “I was disappointed with Grudem as well, especially when he said that it is immoral not to vote for Trump. This sums up my feeling: I would love to see Hillary lose, and I would hate to see Trump win.”
- Pastor John Starke asserts, “Complementarians who care about the honor of women should never justify voting for a sexist as a morally good choice.”
- Philosopher John Mark Reynolds argues, “I will not vote for a man who bought and owns a strip club. This is not a ‘high standard.’ So far every nominee of a major party, but one, could pass it. … If we back the man who is proud, sexist, racist, libertine, a lover a money, then we will lose the right to say ‘character counts’ forever.”
- It is important for Christians not simply what view you take but how you take it. Both your position and disposition matter.
- Yesterday a thoughtful pastor friend of mine asked me this question: “I have read your article and Grudem’s and your response to Grudem. However, your writing has raised a question in my mind. If my conscience leads me not to vote for Trump today, is it possible that I have capitulated to an unwise conscience that has not been properly trained? In other words, could it be that my conscience needs to be recalibrated during this election cycle? Couldn’t, for example, Grudem’s article be used as a conscience recalibration and isn’t that what he is really arguing for?”
- My reply: “Yes! But that’s how we should articulate the strategy. E.g., ‘Let me share how the following reasons inform my conscience.’ Etc. Not, ‘This is the one right way, and if you differ from me, then you are sinful/foolish.’ Christians (and especially fellow church members) really need to learn how to obey Romans 14, and this is a great practical way for church leaders [and members] to encourage that. I tried to do that recently in a Bethlehem sermon: “How Should You Relate to Fellow Christians When Your Consciences Disagree About Disputable Matters?” [It condenses ch. 5 in Conscience.]
Update on 8/1/2016:
- Townhall just published a response to Wayne Grudem’s essay by my friend Alex Chediak.
- David French responds to Wayne Grudem’s essay.
Update on 10/8/2016: After a private recording released in which Trump brags about sexually preying on women, Wayne Grudem humbly pulled his endorsement.
Update on 10/19/2016:
- Grudem updates his initial article: “If You Don’t Like Either Candidate, Then Vote for Trump’s Policies.” He no longer calls Trump “a good candidate with flaws,” but he affirms, “I overwhelmingly support Trump’s policies and believe that Clinton’s policies will seriously damage the nation, perhaps forever.”
- Related Resources:
- John Piper, tweet on 10/11/2016: “Of course, Trump should step down as Olasky and Grudem say. So should Hillary. That is what ‘unqualified’ means. It’s never been a question.”
- Kevin DeYoung, “Seeking Clarity in This Confusing Election Season: Ten Thoughts,” 10/13/2016.
- Jonah Goldberg, “Vote God-Trump 2016,” 10/17/2016.
- David French, “No, God Doesn’t Want You to Vote for Donald Trump,” 10/18/2016.
- On 10/17/2016, I participated in a panel with some of my colleagues on glorifying God amid election angst:
Update on 10/24/2016:
Some more related resources:
- R. Albert Mohler Jr., “For Christians, credibility at stake in election,” 10/23/2016. Money line: “Conscience … is the central issue in the present crisis.”
- Alan Noble, “I’m an evangelical. The religious right leaders who support Trump don’t speak for me,” 10/24/2016.
Update on 10/27/2016: David French, “Trump Has Blown the Evangelical Age Gap Wide Open”
Update on 1/20/2017: John Piper explains how to live under an unqualified president.
Update on 4/21/2020: I recently teamed up with my friend Jonathan Leeman to write both a book and an article on politics, conscience, and the church: “Politics, Conscience, and the Church.”
Update on 6/27/2022: I agree with Andrew Walker: “Failing to appreciate President Trump’s hand in Roe’s demise is intellectually dishonest. So also is making Trump the greatest factor in Roe’s demise. He is owed acknowledgement and gratitude, as well as the activists, scholars, and care-providers of a five decades-long movement.”
I opposed candidate Trump in 2016 on this principle: “We cannot trust what he says because of his character.” I miscalculated regarding his three Supreme Court Justice appointments. I agree with Denny Burk and Doug Wilson:
Among your four options, I’m still undecided. But what baffles me is the “intelligent conservative” friends who would choose Trump over Clinton.
Again, I may abstain. But if my conscience compelled me to choose between Trump and Clinton, it would be an easy and instant choice for Clinton.
How are you thinking through the options here, Alfredo? What makes Clinton more appealing than Trump? I happen to find both pretty bad—the Hitler v. Stalin comparison is very analogous to how I feel about voting in this cycle: either a vote for the murder of many more innocents before they emerge into the world or a vote for someone whose policies are unknown and whose moral character is also horrifying.
“What makes Clinton more appealing than Trump?” In Andy’s first bulleted list (a list of six negatives about Trump), only one of them applies to Hillary.
Yes, but you can add many, many more bullets to Hillary’s list that may not apply to Trump. All you have to do is look at her track record as a politician. Not so “easy” as you say.
I am a Ted Cruz supporter and very conservative. I will vote for Trump if the choice is between him or Clinton. As for being evil, there are few men who have held the WH who HAVEN’T been evil. We know what Clinton stands for, and we know how she will act. I could NOT vote and maintain a clear conscience because that would basically hand the WH to Clinton. How many of us voted for Romney and were okay with that? He has a higher moral standard, but his religion promotes a false god, so does his morality make him less evil then in the eyes of God? How many of us would have termed him “evil”? Probably none, but his religion makes him an enemy of God. We can’t expect godless men and women to act in a godly manner. I believe most of our candidates fall into this description. We can however expect these people to obey the civil laws established by our Constitution and government and act accordingly. We can look at them and vote for the one we feel will best protect us under those laws and promote our “general welfare.” We can not expect them to promote God’s laws because this is a world controlled by Satan who is the prince of this world. We are to be “in the world, but not of the world.” While we are in the world we live godly lives and try to vote for people who will cause the least damage to our lives and the lives of others while we are here. Just my opinion.
It is true that we cannot expect godless men to act in a godly manner, but I do expect grown-up men to act as a mature adult. From political leaders I expect at the least serious thought, prudence, and common decency. Donald Trump fails on all points.
All of our past presidents have been flawed human beings, but never before in our history has one made it to the White House who is truly evil. Donald Trump would be a first.
Andy,
One unmentioned issue, though I’m positive you thought about it, is the sovereignty of God in the elective process. While we vote for a candidate, God ultimately chooses who is going to be the President. If I choose the “lesser of two evils” because I’m afraid that not voting for Trump makes me complicit with Hillary becoming President, then I’m ignoring the larger theological claim which is God’s role in the election.
That’s my perspective anyway.
Matt
That is my question too. If I vote for the lesser of 2 evils simply because I am “afraid” my wasted or non-vote will essentially elect Hillary, then aren’t I voting devoid of faith in God’s sovereign control? I do not at this time plan to vote for Trump or Hillary but I anticipate many well-meaning Christians out there berating or blaming people like me for another President Clinton.
I greatly appreciate the careful reasoning here. I, too, have consistently followed the Buckley principle: vote for the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN. But in this election, I, too, almost certainly won’t be able in good conscience to vote for Trump, for I have since he first announced considered him the most dangerous man ever to get this close to the Presidency: a narcissist demagogue crony corporatist bent on using the power of the state to empower and enrich himself, more likely than anyone I’ve ever seen to become America’s Mussolini or Hitler. Neither will I be able to vote for Clinton, a pathological liar, self-aggrandizer, pro-abortionist, also crony corporatist. I will be told that a vote for anyone BUT Trump is a vote for Clinton. No, a vote for anyone but Clinton is a vote AGAINST Clinton, but also a vote FOR the candidate for whom it’s cast. And that’s important. A vote for third-party or independent candidate whose principles and policies are much closer to mine is a vote AGAINST both Trump and Clinton and FOR that candidate and his or her principles and policies–and if I take the long view, that may mean it’s a vote for the party that I normally favor to nominate, next time around, or four cycles from now, someone better aligned with my principles and policies. I.e., we shall never get our party–whichever it is–to nominate candidates more to our liking if we always vote for whatever candidate it nominates, regardless how repulsive.
I agree with every word! I’m voting either Constitution party, or Libertarian party. Trump is repulsive to me.
Like E. Calvin Beisner, I very much appreciate this article. I’ve been alarmed particularly by Christians who seem to assume (perhaps unwittingly) that voting for “the lesser of two evils” is the only inviolable ethic at stake (the one core conviction or dividing line that finally governs one’s vote). If that’s our final standard, then we’re operating out a pragmatic ethic. (What does John Dewey have to do with Jesus Christ, anyway? Or the New Jerusalem with American political pragmatism?) Christians need biblically informed, Spirit-renewed consciences to think through where to draw the dividing line(s) in this or any other moral dilemmas/circumstances. Not violating one’s conscience is certainly non-negotiable. I presently find myself in the same boat as Andy Naselli, E. Calvin Beisner, Suzanne Sapp, and many others. I’m glad that God’s Anointed is still enthroned in heaven and will return on the clouds to bring an everlasting kingdom that will never be shaken!
I agree wholeheartedly. In addition to all the other issues mentioned, I feel like a vote for Trump would be setting a very dangerous precedent for the Republican party, conservatism and Christians in politics. I must vote AGAINST Trump for that reason. Hopefully I can find a better choice than Hillary.
I remember voting once for a candidate that I truly did not like, but felt that if I voted for the other person I would just be throwing my vote away. The candidate I voted for won, but I felt horrible for voting against my conscience. So here we are again…I was a full supporter of Ben Carson, but then he went and threw his endorsement towards Trump! His explanation for his action seemed weak and I lost respect for him. I decided that I would not follow his lead and support Trump, based on my previous experience and I would vote for the person I believed was the best person for the job. I cannot vote for Hillary. I cannot vote for Trump. I can vote. So I would rather “throw” my vote to a candidate who I believe in, then cast my vote for someone I don’t believe in at all. I am not a”party” person so I don’t vote party lines. If given the choice between shooting my left foot or my right, I would choose to not shoot at all. I have been in prayer and I remind myself that God is really the one who sets authority in it’s place. God is in control, ultimately and although this may seem like a cop out, I assure you it is not. I am however, comforted by it. Opting to not vote at all is an option. When pushed against a wall, I will stand my ground and not endorse someone I don’t believe in. So odd, people have died so that we have the freedom to vote and now I am choosing to not vote as my vote.
Gin, so well expressed my friend! I’m in complete agreement with your understanding of how to proceed in this election with regard to our conscience before God and man. This presentation was exceptionally well done and exceptionally important for a Christ-follower in all matter of things! God bless you and yours and may the answer to his prayer at the end of his teaching/exhortation be fully worked out in our sincere walk before Father…….in Jesus’ name!!!
As a Christian I am in a real quandary. I find Trump’s arrogance and lack of morals extremely repulsive. Hillary is even worse. I would probably do a write-in with Ted Cruz. I was really hoping he would do much better.
I believe that Trump is for Trump. I agree with everything you wrote. However, I think that there’s a better chance for Trump’s cabinet to be made of moral men and women than there is a chance that Hilary would do the same. If I’m considering the future of my country (which is in the Lord’s hands, regardless), I think that Trump might have enough sense to surround himself with smart people.
In the mean time, I am praying for Trump’s salvation. If the Lord could turn the hearts of kings like those in the book of Daniel, He can do the same today.
Good reply, Sarah. I too believe that Trump may at least have the good sense to choose able, moral people to fill the Cabinet. He has already said that he would choose Trey Gowdy for Attorney General, a very good pick! Of course, we don’t know if he really means it or even if Gowdy would accept the position. But this seems to be the only reason one could vote for Trump.
1. Not voting is not an option. Too many have fought and sacrificed for my right and privilege to have the freedom to vote, and I won’t dishonor them.
2. Voting for Clinton is not an option for me. I think this country would continue to be led downward morally, economically, socially, etc.
3. Voting for Trump was not my first choice among the many candidates, but he HAS been voted to be the Republican candidate. We have had many other Republican presidents who were not morally pure and many, and probably even most, conservative evangelicals voted them into office and had a clear conscience about doing it. Maybe we just didn’t know as much about these men, as we do about Donald Trump, since he is so “out there”! He has demonstrated great ability in business and decision making and our country could sure use that! I will not “hold my nose”, or have a “guilty conscience” when I go into the voting booth. God knows my heart and my desires. He knows the dilemma we face He is in control of the future.
4. Going to vote a “write-in”? Why bother – better to use that time doing something constructive.
Well-written food for not only thought but hard prayer. We are on the brink of national judgement, and it behoves us as Christians to pray not only for who will get our vote but how we shall live with the fallout of this election. Choosing the lesser of evil is still going to mean we have to live with the evil. Thank you for your post.
Is it fair to say that a write-in candidate wouldn’t win? More than likely, they wouldn’t. But honestly, we don’t don’t know what would actually happen. After all, look where we are now!
I am seriously thinking this issue through. In all likelihood, I will be giving my presidential vote to a third party candidate for the first time since I started voting. I will no doubt continue to vote the R column for my representatives and senators as I have been satisfied with them and dissatisfied with my D state senator (though he’s not up for reelection this year). I’m more concerned about that anyway as the president is not the lawmaker. The president is, after all, simply the head of one of three branches of the federal government. That branch is not the law making branch. He can veto, but such veto can be overridden. He can appoint and sign treaties but not without consent from the senate.
I’ll also clarify that the term “commander-in-chief” is a term related to the military and not to the country as a whole.
At the end of the day it is either Trump or Clinton and we already know for a fact how she will govern concerning abortion and Planned Parenthood. This election has more to do with Supreme Court picks than it does anything else and if Hillary gets to choose America as we know it is gone where with Trump at least we have a chance for some conservative candidates. Is he perfect? No, but we already know all about her…
Friendly reminder (from my post on 2/2/2009):
No Anonymous or Pseudonymous Comments, Please
When you submit a comment, please use your full real name and one of your active email addresses. The real name is for the benefit of everyone (including yourself!), and the active email address is for me (i.e., it is not viewable to others) in case I’d like to contact you privately.
Mr. Naselli states in this article that this election will have huge consequences for the issues of abortion, religious liberty, free markets, and gender issues. Those are definitely vital issues. And the consequences are definitely huge. The problem in this election is that the candidates for the two major parties are not discernibly different with respect to these issues. With respect to other issues, it doesn’t matter what Trump says because he has already been “snared by the words of his mouth” because what he says he believes depends on what kind of mood he is in and changes almost daily. Clinton is more politically polished and seasoned than Trump, but she is just the other side of the same coin.
Sadly, it isn’t going to matter which party wins this election. Party unity and getting behind the nominee is a hollow battle cry for a battle for which there can be no real victory. So I have to hang on to the victory I have in Christ, which in the end may be what this election is all about for Christians anyway.
For me, I cannot with a clear conscience vote for either of these two candidates. I cannot align myself with evil regardless of what technical distinctions of evil may exist between the two choices. Whether I just don’t vote or vote with a clear conscience for a write-in or another candidate remains to be seen.
Andy,
Thank you so much for helping me formulate my own opinion on this matter. Throughout the campaign, I was gung-ho for Kasich, and up until recently, I was planning on writing him in. However, I’ve been reading R. R. Reno in “First Things,” and he’s taken the position that he is increasingly anti-anti-Trump, not pro-Trump. For me, (and you essay was clarifying in this respect), as a conservative and Christian, it would be a sin against my conscience to write-in Kasich, though I had originally thought writing him in would save my seared conscience. I could go on, but just wanted to say thanks for a clarifying essay—even though I take a different position than you. I’d be interested to read how (if) your thoughts have changed over the last few months.
Aaron Lewis
Hi Andy,
One issue that is really compelling to me is abortion. Our Supreme Court is the decisive factor determining its legality. The facts are that the next President will make as many as 4 Supreme Court appointments in the next four years (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-next-president-could-reshape-the-supreme-court/). A Clinton presidency would cement a firm pro-choice majority on the bench for probably the next thirty years. This result would doom any effort to overturn Roe v. Wade in that time frame. Assuming that the CDC’s estimate of lives lost to abortion in 2012 (699,000 http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/) remains constant over the next 30 years, any hope of protecting 2 million unborn lives is at stake in the next election.
Even if you don’t tend to believe or trust Trump; nevertheless, the list of justices he proposed are pro-life (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/politics/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees.html?_r=0), making it at the least likely that his appointees would have that value. Even if President Trump would be as disastrous as Clinton (I find that unlikely), at least this issue should compel Christians to vote for him to keep Hillary from controlling the future of the court for the foreseeable future.
Thanks, Ross. I understand your point, and it’s a good one.
This explains more where I’m coming from: Denny Burk, “I’m a single-issue voter on multiple issues, and so are you.”
I am quite concerned when people state as some sort of fact that the new President (Trump, as it turned out) will be making 4 or 5 appointments to the Supreme Court.
Antonin Scalia passed away last year, so that seat will be filled. That’s it. One.
Supreme Court positions are appointments for life. If you are going around making factual statements that 3 or 4 will die during the next four years, you are claiming equality with the all-knowing and ever-living God. The Scripture says that even Jesus, who was God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped,
Trump could die before anybody on the bench does, that is entirely possible. Or, the next four years can pass without our losing anybody from the bench. We do not know. While I’m not sure that God is controlling Trump’s free-will enabled mind, I know that God is in complete control of when He calls anybody from this earthly life–be they Supreme Court justices, or Mr. Trump himself.
By the way, I didn’t vote for Trump. I voted third party, for the first time in my life.
Thanks for pointing me to that article Andy. He makes a good point and I generally agree with it. I have two questions for Denny (or maybe for you or you are in agreement his point).
Are the disqualifying qualities that Denny listed for Trump as morally grevious as the mass killing of unborn babies? And if they are not on the same moral level, then can they outweigh the abortion issue as justification to not vote for him?
FYI: I just updated the essay by adding a section at the end:
Update (7/29/2016): Reply to Wayne Grudem’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice”
I have yet to meet a Christian who is happy over Trump’s becoming the Republican nominee. It is my belief that failing to vote for Trump is a direct vote for Clinton.
Here’s a recent quote from Hillary: “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Frank Bruni is also quoted in that article: “Church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.'”
The “have to be changed” and “must be made” point to an upcoming period where I foresee Democrats monitoring sermons and turning them in as hate speech. I think before Hillary is finished with 8 years the Bible will be sanctioned by the federal government because of “hate” contained in it.
My conscience is not in turmoil over this decision. Though I loathe Trump, I believe he might appoint justices which lean our way. I also wonder how far on the org chart Clinton has to go to find a Christian. I think Trump’s journey is one org chart box lower—Pence.
re: Lewinsky scandal disqualified Clinton for Presidency, not because he had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, but because he used the power of his public office of trust (which is charged with seeing that the laws are faithfully executed) to intimidate and suborn witnesses, and obstruct justice, and because he both committed perjury (his privilege of practicing law was suspended for this), and delivered a calculated lie to the American People, in order to exculpate himself. Private citizen Trump has been an unfaithful husband (not to mention a blowhard), but there is no abuse of the public trust involved with Trump’s misdeeds, while Bill Clinton’s actions were precisely such an abuse of governing power. Not a valid comparison, they may both be schmucks, but only one is morally disqualified from holding an office of public trust.
What do you say to the fact that Trump repeatedly boasts that he purchases the favor of office holders. That was the basis for his claim in the convention speech that “I know the system better than anybody…(pause)…(smirk))…[applause]” Pay for play is a crime. It is just as much a crime for the corrupter as it is the corruptee.
What is there to say? I’m not defending Trump as a paragon, nor even as an “Outsider.” Trump would be The Insider, were he running against anyone besides the ultimate Insider, Hillary Clinton. I am dealing with the two alternatives we have at this time. Hillary is dramatically worse, more because of her devotion to the anti-Constitutional Progressive Vision (as Obama put it, “The Fundamental Transformation of the United States of America”), and her mastery of the machinery of State power, than because of her thoroughgoing corruption. Like Dr. Grudem, I expect that some good things would follow from a Trump presidency, but even if none do, in contrast to a Hillary Clinton presidency, at the end of a Trump presidency, the Constitution and the Rule of Law will live to fight another day.
I believe Grudem’s article nailed it! I did not get the sense that he was trying to say that those who could not vote for Trump in good conscience are sinful and/or foolish. I believe that is a misinterpretation of his article. I read your post and his. I do not think that he would disagree with you that one should not vote against his conscience. What he did was provide a broader perspective of the issue in order to educate and strengthen weaker consciences. I appreciated his article very much for that reason. The vote is far more than a man because with that man or woman come many others who will make a difference.
Amen, well said.
Excellent and very helpful, Andy. (Which is to say, I agree. )
(c:
Thanks.
My own 2¢:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/07/patsies-for-trump.html