Recently at Townhall, Wayne Grudem attempted to offer a moral compromise that would allow conservative Christians a way to vote for Trump the candidate while still disapproving of Trump the man. Or put another way, he stated that broken cookies lose all their calories and can be eaten with impunity.
If this election has done nothing else, it has caused many conservative Christians to wrestle through ethical thought in ways that having a Mormon on the ballot four years ago only dreamed of. I know this from personal experience – I consider myself a conservative Christian, I have worked in and around politics and public administration for almost two decades, and like never before I have had to reason through my priorities when it comes to the character, actions and thought of a candidate running for office.
This wrestling has not been helped by having voices that represent (rightfully or wrongfully) conservative Christians speak against each other. Men and women whose thoughts have helped me are starting from the same data and reaching exactly opposite conclusions. I haven’t seen that happen this often since high school algebra class.
Grudem, a theologian, writer and seminary professor, is widely recognized as a thought leader in the conservative wing of the American evangelical church. Though he is currently facing scrutiny and some pushback on his teachings on and views of the Trinity, his books are used in seminary classes and grace the Amazon wish lists of Bible students, lay and clergy alike. Many take what he says or writes as something closely related to the gospel itself – his words many not be written in brick red letters, but they are from the same color family. That is what makes his original written support for Trump, now rescinded, and recent encouragement to still vote for Trump, so troubling: he justifies voting for a candidate whose conduct, in his own words just two weeks ago, “is hateful in God’s eyes.” Say what?
The justification lies in the thought: as bad as Trump may be, Clinton is (fill in the blank) times worse. From that flows the following sequence: 1. the most important thing in this election is to keep Hillary out of office; 2. since we operate in a largely two party political system, only one of the two major candidates on the ballot will win the election; 3. therefore, a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary. Then follows the conclusion: voting for Trump, who is admittedly very bad, is necessary because the alternative is so much worse. In other words, the ends justifies the means.
In moral philosophy, this rationale is known as consequentialism, which is itself a form of utilitarianism. Consequentialism holds that an action is “good” based solely on the consequences of that action; if the results are morally good, then the action that produced them is also morally good. To use an extreme example: if Stalin and Hitler were running for president this November, a vote for Stalin, resulting in a Stalin win, would be morally good because a Hitlerian presidency would be morally bad. (I said it was extreme. In reality it is more Henry VIII vs. Marie Antoinette.)
Consequentialism stands opposite of deontological ethics, and in Christian thought, this is significantly important. Briefly, deontological ethics holds that an action is “good” based on its adherence to a moral law or laws and does not factor in the consequences of that action. In conservative Christianity, the “moral law” is the Bible, by which everything else is weighed. Thus, each Christian’s vote must be judged against its fidelity to or disregard of the Scriptures.
Granted, it is true that the Bible does not mention many factors that are present in this election cycle, the least of which are: America, democracy, republicanism, and voting. However, it does speak to the motivations and actions of the believer, i.e. follower of Christ. It also warns that the world will reject those who are committed disciples. Furthermore, it warns against making moral compromises and taking shortcuts on the path of imitating Christ. In fact, the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3:6-7) came about by taking a short-cut to becoming more like God; eating the ‘forbidden fruit’ was done under the thought it could make Adam and Eve’s life better.
Is that not what Grudem and many others are arguing? Voting for Trump, and his subsequent winning the presidency, will make the American conservative Christian’s life better? Again, the ends justifies the means.
What will happen, I wonder, if all the conservative Christians vote for Trump and Clinton still wins (which is likely)? At that point I expect Grudem and others will become deontological ethicists overnight by saying: “come what may, our consciences are clear because we voted the morally superior candidate and have no stake in the outcome.” But did they? Is that true? No. Moral decisions are not like a spoiled and capricious child that begs for a treat and then spits it out once he receives it.
In summary, the Christian is free to vote for whomever he or she wishes. However, the justification needs to be personal and not some twisted form of consequentialist logic. A stronger argument for voting third party, or even skipping the presidential race while still voting down ballot, can be made from deontology, knowing that the outcome of the election cannot be blamed on any one individual voter. As for me, I cannot vote for either Trump or Clinton; most likely, I will write in someone knowing that they will not win. Regardless, I am at peace because I will have voted my conscience and did not attempt to rationalize a moral quagmire by calling it a lush meadow.
