An election post-mortem. Don’t confuse me with the facts!
The US Presidential elections are long over, and from the rubble of the vitriol, deflection, and lack of substance during the debates has emerged the de facto President-Elect of The United States. Barring a catastrophic revelation such as, say, the late discovery that Donald J. Trump was born in Russia, he will be sworn in as the 45th President of these United States. To say this election was fractious might qualify as the understatement of the year. Relationships were sorely tested and many failed the test.
We are a culture of “adjectives,” and we’re terribly fond of labels. Our tendency is to classify people as one thing or the other, but maybe even more shocking was how so many Christians declared other Christians unfit to be Christian simply because of their political leanings. Facebook and its social media ilk became the unwitting arbiters of disseminating fake news more than truth.
And the mainstream media?
Well, completely out of touch with the masses, and focused on promoting their own agenda, they were shockingly reminded that the people and not they, control the cultural narrative as well as the impact of political discourse.
So now, on the eve of the inauguration of the 45th POTUS, is as good a time as any to perform a necropsy on the state of our country following the recent elections. Obviously (at least to me), the primary purpose of this exercise is to, in general, understand why our political differences caused so much dissension and vitriol, dissect the reasons for which Christians became as divided as we did; and in particular, to find out how Christianity has emerged from this erstwhile battle.
Let’s begin by reminding ourselves that Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote by a significant margin, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than two million votes (Yes, I’m aware that conspiracy theorists suggest that the popular vote was rigged, but that contention is hardly worth the rabbit trail built by such divisive and unproven theories). Whatever the case, this divided result points to a nation sharply divided evenly down the middle, at least among the voting populace.
Talking about voter fraud, let’s begin this conversation with the idea of fraud. What’s really fraudulent is this notion that our political system is a binary party system. That’s the biggest fraud of all, and I heard it perpetrated by Evangelical Christians numerous times during the election cycle. It became the primary reason for getting behind Trump in spite of all his, shall we say, inadequacies.
To excuse the stench of his blatant excesses which clearly reflected a departure from Scripture, the popular Christian refrain became, “I’m voting for President not for Pope.” But why were Christians willing to overlook his shortcomings when confronted with options other than his candidacy?
Seeing as how so many of us interpret our party system as a binary system, the answer to that can be explained by two primary ideas:
It would appear that, as far as Christians were concerned, Liberals and Democrats were assiduously working to ridicule and delegitimize their faith, while apparently seeking to cloak themselves in a garb of spirituality that was, at best, a pretentiously thin veneer of pseudo-spirituality. Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that the Christian faith was going to have to catch up with the current times, arrogantly demonstrated that—at least in her opinion—the Bible isn’t as authoritative and infallible as Christians hold it to be. She miscalculated the fact that many of the issues that Christians hold sacrosanct are indeed mountains-to-die-on, and so to dismiss them as cavalierly as she did rubbed many Christian Black, White, and Hispanic voters the wrong way. In that gross miscalculation, she fatally underestimated the power of the Evangelical voting block.
The Democratic Party has an ideological disconnect with Evangelicals. The manifesto of the Party would seem to suggest that only people with liberal and “progressive” ideologies need apply. As a friend of mine put it, “There is no room in the Democratic Inn for Conservative Christians.” This disconnect in large part gave rise to the “vote for a party platform even if you don't like the candidate” ideology.
While these two reasons would largely explain the Evangelical voters support for Trump, ultimately culpability for the vitriol surrounding the elections lies with ideologically and intellectually arrogant Democrats, racially prejudiced and misogynistic Republicans, and theologically illiterate and intolerant Evangelicals.
But were these reasons, in all good conscience, reason enough for Christians to vote for Trump? Weren’t there more than two political parties platforming candidates for the Presidency? The answer to those questions would be ‘no’ only if you believe that our system isn’t binary.
Truth 1: The Fallacy of a Binary-Party System
A so-called two-party system is a subterfuge that derives its strength from the lemming-like following of political ideology. How can it possibly be a binary system if there are five party candidates on the ballot sheet and a space to fill in any name your heart desires? While it’s true to say there are two major party candidates, if the majority of the electorate decided to vote for a third party candidate because they found the two main party candidates ill-suited for the position of POTUS, then that groundswell of support at the polls would undoubtedly carry the third party candidate into office thereby making nonsense of the claim of a binary party system.
The truth lies somewhere closer to the fact that too many Evangelical Christians are inexplicably tied to a party platform more than they are to the qualifications of a given candidate. To read some of the illogical postulations expressing why “real” Christians must vote for a political party even if you aren’t particularly enamored by that party’s candidate, would seem to suggest that if Hitler, or even Satan himself ran on the platform of said Party, he would be a shoo-in for their vote based on the party platform principle.
Look friends, this tired rhetoric of voting for a party platform borders on the absurd. As Christians we don’t apply such logic to any other area of our lives, yet in politics it seems to hold sway against all wisdom to the contrary. Might I remind you that it wasn’t possessing the ten commandments—the platform upon which a Godly nation was built—that made Israel holy and righteous before God, it was their observance of said commandments.
They weren’t better off than the pagan nations because they possessed or believed in the ten commandments, they were better off only if they observed them, as succinctly pointed out in the Scriptures in Deuteronomy 11. After all, how many of us pick what church to attend based on the political beliefs of the pastor? In other words, how many of us have had conversations with a pastor about his political party platform before we make the decision to embrace the Biblical beliefs he espouses (which, unlike a political allegiance, are actually relevant to our salvation and wellbeing)?
Many Evangelical Christians would have us believe that supporting something as inanimate as a party platform determines whether or not one is a true Christian, but in the same breath they turn around and suggest to gun-control advocates that guns are inanimate objects and don’t kill people, other people kill people. But, much like a gun is an inanimate object—and according to those who support gun ownership—doesn’t kill people, the same must be said about political party platforms. A platform doesn’t govern, nor does it promulgate regulations and laws, people do…for better or for worse, regardless of what party they belong to.
Truth 2: The Fallacy of Roe v. Wade and The Lesser of Two Evils
Republican appointed Justices have been a majority in the SCOTUS since 1953 and did in fact vote in support of Roe v. Wade by a majority of 7 — 2 in favor of the decision. Of the 7 Justices who voted for the decision, 5 were conservative Republican appointees with only one dissenting voice. That’s an inconvenient truth for Republican “party platform” Christians who’d much rather sweep those facts under the rug by deflecting attention to the Democrats as pro-abortion-baby-killers, even though there is an entire movement of Democrats against abortion. Again, party platforms don’t establish legislation or belief systems, people do.
Is it reasonably possible to believe that people can belong to a particular political party without subscribing to everything that the party stands for? Arnold Schwarzenneger was the Republican Governor of California, yet only his fiscal policies made him a moderate Republican. His social platform was more in line with liberalism (he actually officiated at the wedding of a gay couple). President-Elect Donald Trump, and former Florida Governor, Charlie Crist (among many others) have both switched political parties in recent years. Why? Did the party manifestos suddenly change, or did they wake up one morning and suddenly realize that, like a sail boat drifting in the undertow of the current, they’d drifted away from the party platform they once so strongly believed in? I think not my friends. I’d suggest that it’s simply political expediency.
But these politicians aren’t the problem that concerns me, we Christians are!
You see, it would be fine if we’d simply suggest that we’re supporting a candidate because we believe he or she will work to serve our best interests. But when we attempt to couch our support in spiritual garments and suggest that others who don’t see what we see are either not “real” Christians or not “hearing” God clearly enough, that is deceitful and monumentally arrogant at best. To imply, as has been done on numerous occasions, that one candidate’s sin is more grievous than another’s is selective morality. And make no mistake about it, a selective morality that suggests that going with the lesser of two evils is the better option, is in itself deadly. It is the very definition of moral relativism, which evangelical Christians decry and detest in everyone else.
I like how a friend of mine puts it:
“It is this same moral relativism that conservatives condemn among liberals that made evangelicals support a thrice-married, serial adulterer with a precariously tenuous prior relationship with Scripture and wafer-thin pedigree in Kingdom issues over a well-qualified Methodist woman married for over three decades to one man and had no history of adulterous conduct.” ~ Gbenga X
While I don’t personally believe that Hillary Clinton would have made a better POTUS for the majority of Americans, I can’t help but agree with his contention that to point out one of the candidates’ shortcomings as being more egregious than the other’s—based primarily on the party platform they represent—is moral relativism, which, in a very real sense confers on Christians the self-attributed authority of ‘gods’ dispensing judgment and our own brand of justice as we see fit.
If Daniel and the three Hebrew Boys had exercised a choice between the lesser of two evils instead of restricting themselves to vegetables and water, they would have opted for some of the fare from King Nebuchadnezzar’s table—which the king had expressly requested be given to his servants—so as to avoid falling into disfavor with the king and possibly face death for repudiating his authority. If Daniel had opted for the lesser of two evils when Nebuchadnezzar instructed that everyone in Babylon bow down and worship the giant image of him, he would have kept the doors to his room closed and prayed to his God secretly so as to avoid the death penalty. Instead he opted to spend a night using lions as pillows.
If Joseph had opted for the lesser of two evils he could surely have justified acquiescing to the advances of Potiphar’s wife knowing that a good word from her to Potiphar would make life better for him and potentially elevate him to a position of authority so that his prophecy of being honored by his parents and brothers would come to pass (He was smart enough to also know that a negative report about him from her to Potiphar could potentially end his life). Instead he honored his covenant with God and opted for prison for two years under the unjust shadow of false allegations. I’m sure by now you get the point.
Truth 3: The Deceiving Allure of Political Power
I would boldly assert that we Christians hold political power and expedience above our witness as Christ followers to outsiders! Why else would we want to impose our beliefs and lifestyle on everyone else, especially through gaining political dominance? Why else would we think that imposing legislation against abortion would ever stop those who don’t believe as we do from getting abortions? There is grave danger in trying to build a “Christian” state by legislation in spite of the fact that not every American believes the way we do.
While one might argue that radical Islam is on a rampage globally, terrorizing the innocent and attempting to forcefully impose their beliefs on others, if we Christians attempt to impose our beliefs on others under the guise of political expedience, how are we any different? After all, history shamefully brandishes the terrible crimes against humanity that have been committed in the name of Christianity, all under the guise of protecting the faith. Consider the Spanish Inquisition of 1478 established for the following stated reason:
King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella wanted an all-Catholic kingdom as a tool with which to Unite Spain. They did this by forcing people to admit to being heretics and then publicly killing them or imprisoning them for life. Those accused who did not admit to being heretics were still found guilty by a tribunal and publicly executed. The tribunal was established with authority from the Pope (by definition, a heretic was anyone who didn’t embrace catholicism). http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/WestEurope/SpanInqui.html.
While you may be tempted to argue that radical Islam is still worse because, as a religion it is fundamentally violent, I would counter that logic by simply asking, is one crime more heinous than another because the perpetrator of one crime wears $5000 suits, lives in a Manhattan penthouse, and drives the car of your dreams, while the other is poorly educated, raised-in-poverty, and is a never-do-well petty thief who broke into your house and robbed you at gunpoint?
If the answer to that question is no—and I’m confident that it is—then we must recognize that we cannot impose our way of life on anyone simply because they view life through a different prism than we do. The only proven way to win the outsider isn’t by legislating and imposing our version of morality, but by loving them into the Kingdom.
So how does it look for the Church post-election?
I imagine the answer to this question will largely depend on how much humility we’re willing to model. Whether we consider the outcome of the recent elections a victory or defeat, we must resist the temptation to name call, label, denigrate, and deride other people’s interpretation of their faith, as if we have a monopoly on wisdom and are the only ones capable of hearing God distinctly.
All too often, we’re quick to unsheathe our verbal swords as soon as we perceive that our interpretation of faith is under attack, and this makes it difficult to listen to the other side of the story. I realize that abortion, gay rights legislation, immigration, terrorism, the economy and a myriad of other issues are all hot-button topics of the moment, but consensus will never be reached by any side attempting to insensitively impose its will on the other.
As Christ followers we must remember that our fight isn’t against “flesh and blood” but against “principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and wicked spirits in the heavenly realm.” If we can keep this big idea forefront in our minds, then we will ultimately always come back to the most important idea there is…Christ and Him Crucified for the sake of the whole world! After all, that is the Good News of the Gospel, isn’t it?
Finally, I’ll conclude this lengthy dissertation by reminding us that the Church always does better when we’re on our knees than when we carry arms (Acts 12:5). It’s time to faithfully and fervently pray for the 45th President of the United States of America, whether you voted him into office or not. That is what 1 Timothy 2:2 demands of the professing Christ follower. Just my Dos Centavos!
