Is This The Best We Can Do?

I just read Al Mohler's blog-post of a couple of weeks ago.  I found Mohler's reasoning and conclusions to be helpful.  Central in his piece is the conviction that character does matter.  His observation agrees with mine.  Evidence--and that is all we can go on--indicates a serious lack of a solid moral base in both major presidential candidates.

Mrs. Clinton simply doesn't seem to care about truth and integrity.  The recent announcement by the FBI, though indicating that the former Secretary of State would not be indited, was hardly an indication that she is a person of character.  She is clearly dedicated to the "We will absolutely not ever interfere with any abortion." position of the the Democrat party.  I cannot say whether her position is one of personal commitment or political expediency.  Either way it is a serious ethical flaw.  On one hand it represents a disrespect for human life, on the other it displays a glaring lack of integrity,  While a case can be made that she is was the victim of her husband's adultery, and her willingness to work through those issues and preserve her family is admirable, I have not heard her offer an apology to "The vast right wing conspiracy" since it became clear that, indeed, her husband did have "sex with that woman."

Recently, Evangelical (former) leader James Dobson announced that he believed that Donald Trump is born again.  The report, based on what he heard, indicates that Paula White led the presumptive Republican candidate to faith in Jesus.  I will gladly lead the rejoicing should such a report turn out to be true, but the fact is, I have no idea whether it is true or not.  I am struck with the convenience of floating this story at a time when Republican strategists are desperate to gain Evangelical support for their candidate.  In a subsequent statement Dobson speaks with greater caution.  Like me, it now appears that he is hopeful, but agnostic on the matter.  More to the point, the reality or fiction of the reports about Trump's conversion are irrelevant to the decision before me.  I know many folk--I would probably put myself in the group--who clearly are trusting the Gospel of Christ for life and eternity, who would make horrible presidents.  It is in a different realm, but the concept is relevant.  Paul, passing on counsel to his younger delegate, Timothy, cautions him to “not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others." (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB95)  When looking for someone to lead the church the standard was not, "Is he reported to be born again?" but, does he exhibit the necessary character?"  (See 1 Timothy 3) Though such character flows from a heart changed by "grace, through faith," it takes time to be seen.  We haven't had, and we won't have, the time to inspect the fruit.

In case it isn't clear, what I'm saying is I don't see either of the major candidates to be somebody I am for. As far as it goes, that is a sentiment that I hear from a number of Evangelicals.  They aren't for either candidate, however they are more, not-for, one candidate, and so they will, therefore, vote for the other.  One reason I appreciated Mohler's article is that he doesn't make that case.  Fairly early on Russel Moore wrote on that line of reasoning.  "Should we vote for the lesser of two evils?"  I admire the clarity of his conclusion.

Our primary concern is not the election night victory party, but the Judgment Seat of Christ.
When Christians face two clearly immoral options, we cannot rationalize a vote for immorality or injustice just because we deem the alternative to be worse. The Bible tells us we will be held accountable not only for the evil deeds we do but also when we “give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).
This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option.

 During my pastoral career I avoided endorsing candidates.  I'm not doing that now.  If anything I'm saying that I don't see either of the major candidates as worthy of my vote.  That's bipartisan, folks.  What will I do on November 8?  I don't yet know.  I am trying to approach this mess in such a way that my integrity will be intact on the other side.  I know that many of you will disagree with me on one or more of my points.  I have little interest in arguing.  I'd rather encourage.  Do what is right; at least try.

 

The Fault-line that ruptured some families:

One of the news stories of the recent election was how a number of young evangelicals chose to go contrary to their elders and vote for (now) President Obama. To say that this syndrome created a crisis in some families I'm acquainted with, is probably not too strong a statement.
Basically, the division came down to the older folk holding onto the view that support for a pro choice candidate violated their commitment to the sanctity of life. Many of them just couldn't understand how their kids could . . .
Though I'm definitely in the Older Evangelical demographic, I think get it, at least to a point.

• The youngsters (and some oldsters) look at a history of opposition to Roe v. Wade abortion law, that has lasted longer than they have been alive and say, "What do we have to show for all this effort? Maybe we should try something else."
• There was the obvious generational difference. I mean you could play basketball with Mr. Obama. Ladies could see themselves shopping with Michelle. Poor Old John couldn't get his arthritic hands above his head. In our image-conscious world, in a way that lies behind our cognitive, this image is powerful. Mr. Obama looks presidential in a vibrant, youthful way. In that regard he is a young version of Reagan.
• Then there are other issues. The younger folk raised a legitimate question. Is the abortion issue the only thing, or the preeminent thing, about which we should be concerned? That is a question worthy of intelligent debate.

Anyhow, now that President Obama is in office, it would be interesting to hear from some of you young evangelicals who supported him. You are welcome to remain anonymous. Did the speedy repeal of the ban on abortion funding disappoint you? Have you been pleased with his efforts to reach-out? Is speaker Pelosi, friend or foe?

I have a post in the works that questions the morality of a person who says that it is above his pay grade to answer the question of when life begins yet sanctions the killing of whatever those things are inside of women when by his own answer, clever though it was, he admits that he isn't sure whether they are human-beings or not. My suspicion is that he knows that they are. His answer was a dodge of that truth. Is avoiding that inconvenient truth acceptable?

Perhaps most important: Since you rejected the paradigm of voting against the friend of abortion, what new framework do you suggest?

I hope to hear from you. If you do choose anonymity, please let us know the general age bracket you fall into.