Dr. Grudem is well-known in the Christian community. He is a respected theologian. I've personally read some of his Systematic Theology text and have deeply appreciated his wisdom. So when he comes out and says...
...I look upon it with alarm and hesitation.
I am responding to his article in Town Hall, now widely circulating the Christian community on social media outlets, wherein he makes an attempt to defend the notion that Mr. Trump is "a morally good choice" for Christian voters.
“Morally good choice”, is he? Caution, Christian. Think.
“As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years...[n]ow that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.”
...I look upon it with alarm and hesitation.
I am responding to his article in Town Hall, now widely circulating the Christian community on social media outlets, wherein he makes an attempt to defend the notion that Mr. Trump is "a morally good choice" for Christian voters.
“Morally good choice”, is he? Caution, Christian. Think.
Grudem's Argument
Dr. Grudem’s argument hinges on a singular faulty premise and leads a necessarily faulty conclusion:
“If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?” (emphasis added)
Take note of his premise and his follow-up conclusion:
- Premise: Voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate that your would-be good conscience allows you to vote for “will directly help Hillary Clinton” which would be morally evil (implied in his article).
- Conclusion: A person cannot vote for a 3rd party candidate or write in a candidate and vote in good conscience. They are mutually exclusive actions.
The premise isn’t new. It isn’t even unique to dissatisfied Republicans. Democrats are saying the same thing, only their fear about voting 3rd party is that it helps Donald Trump. It’s the conclusion that I take particular issue with.
It is manipulative to say that a person must vote for Donald Trump if he/she is going to be voting with a good conscience.
To say that it is impossible for someone to vote with a good, clear conscience for Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or any other candidate he/she wishes to cast a vote for, is false and wrong.
Why? Why is it false? Why is it wrong? Because the premise leading to the conclusion is false and wrong:
The premise is based on assumption that voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps the [Dem/Rep Candidate], as he stated. Below are five reasons that I will argue make this premise incorrect.
For these five reasons, I have undertaken to persuade to you that it is a false and unfair premise to say that voting for a 3rd party candidate this fall “directly helps Hillary Clinton”. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Grudem’s conclusion is similarly incorrect.
One can vote with a good and clear conscience for a 3rd party candidate this fall. In fact, I encourage a healthy, soul-searching analysis of the playing field.
I call on all Americans, especially my brothers and sisters in Jesus, to consider all of their options for the sake of conscience, before casting their vote this fall.
As for the remainder of Dr. Grudem’s article, I briefly say the following:
It is clear that Dr. Grudem believes that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible thing that could happen to our American Republic.
He assumes that the damage Hillary Clinton would cause to our nation is worse than the damage that Donald Trump would cause.
But while most agree that both candidates are extremely unpalatable and that both would negatively impact our nation, definitively stating which one would do the worst harm is much harder to assert with full confidence.
To point to either and say with confidence, “He’d be the worst” or “She’d be the worst” is, in my view, more difficult than Dr. Grudem makes it out to be.
Don’t be lured into contorting your conscience based solely on the “Supreme Court Argument”.
If you're a Christian in America, I call on you to consider all of your options for the presidency.
Do not believe the lie that you must somehow bend your conscience to vote for an “egotistical, bombastic, brash, empty, insulting, vindictive, unfaithful” candidate (Grudem’s depiction, not mine) as the leader of your nation's executive branch when the literal opposite thereof exists in other legitimate candidates for President in this election year.
It is manipulative to say that a person must vote for Donald Trump if he/she is going to be voting with a good conscience.
To say that it is impossible for someone to vote with a good, clear conscience for Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or any other candidate he/she wishes to cast a vote for, is false and wrong.
Where Grudem Falters?
Why? Why is it false? Why is it wrong? Because the premise leading to the conclusion is false and wrong:
The premise is based on assumption that voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps the [Dem/Rep Candidate], as he stated. Below are five reasons that I will argue make this premise incorrect.
- The statement is illogical. Voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps [3rd Party Candidate]. (period)
- Underlying this notion is the assumption that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. Not only is this untrue historically (Abraham Lincoln being the prime example of running as a 3rd party candidate in his time… and winning), but it is an extreme to say that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. “Never”? Really? If one ever could win, it would be in 2016, when the nation is so divided and so fed up with the “two-party” political system.
- Neither current statistics nor history prove beyond reasonable doubt that voting for a 3rd party candidate would cause the presidency to be given to any other candidate.
- Recent polls have presented conflicting conclusions - some say that Gary Johnson, for example, attracts more Democrat voters. Others say that Gary Johnson attracts more Republican voters. My interpretation? Those voters probably aren’t hard-line Democrats or Republicans in the first place, which causes me to point you back to bullet point #2.
I, for one, am currently registered as a Republican. Ask me what I’m registered as after voter registration re-opens in September here in Oklahoma… It won’t be Republican or Democrat.
My observation is that while many who can’t stomach the major parties right now won’t re-register, many will, in fact declare their independence from those parties’ candidates this fall. - As far as history goes: People often point to Perot and Nader as “spoiler” candidates who allowed Bill Clinton or George W. Bush to become President. Post-election analysis has not supported these conclusions. Joshua Leinsdorf’s analysis is illuminating in Ross Perot’s case, and the data simply doesn’t add up in Ralph Nader’s case. Chris Powell has an excellent summary analysis. The bottom line is this: One cannot be faithful to the data and say “___ cost ___ the election” or “___ allowed ___ to win the election”. It simply isn’t the case. It is unknown whether it would be the case in 2016. Don’t let fear inhibit rational analysis of your options in November.
- It is unknown what voters who are considering a 3rd party candidate would do if they were forced to choose Clinton or Trump. Would disgruntled Republicans, with certainty, vote for Donald Trump? Would dissatisfied Democrats, with certainty, vote for Hillary Clinton? Would Independents, with certainty, vote for either of them? Would any/all stay home in protest?
- Since it is unknown what such a voter would do if he/she were not given a 3rd (or 4th) choice, it is unsafe to assume that his/her vote would count for any other candidate for the presidency. If you’re making Grudem’s argument, it’s definitely unsafe to assume that such a voter would vote for whichever candidate you feel needed it to defeat [the Enemy Candidate].
- The argument is used as a silencer on those who want their voices to be heard. Asserting that one must stay within the two party system, when neither represent your beliefs or your conscience, is “saying your beliefs aren’t worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder.”, as Gary Johnson puts it.
Concluding Remarks
For these five reasons, I have undertaken to persuade to you that it is a false and unfair premise to say that voting for a 3rd party candidate this fall “directly helps Hillary Clinton”. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Grudem’s conclusion is similarly incorrect.
One can vote with a good and clear conscience for a 3rd party candidate this fall. In fact, I encourage a healthy, soul-searching analysis of the playing field.
I call on all Americans, especially my brothers and sisters in Jesus, to consider all of their options for the sake of conscience, before casting their vote this fall.
As for the remainder of Dr. Grudem’s article, I briefly say the following:
It is clear that Dr. Grudem believes that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible thing that could happen to our American Republic.
He assumes that the damage Hillary Clinton would cause to our nation is worse than the damage that Donald Trump would cause.
But while most agree that both candidates are extremely unpalatable and that both would negatively impact our nation, definitively stating which one would do the worst harm is much harder to assert with full confidence.
To point to either and say with confidence, “He’d be the worst” or “She’d be the worst” is, in my view, more difficult than Dr. Grudem makes it out to be.
- Dr. Grudem’s analysis focused primarily on one aspect of the power delegated to the President: To nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. He neglects to remind readers that the confirmation of such a nomination rests with the Senate. And not all Justices that are nominated are appointed (take President Obama’s recent nomination as the prime example if you will…)
- It is unknown whether or not our next President will have the opportunity to nominate any Supreme Court Justices, save for Justice Scalia’s replacement, assuming the Senate continues to abdicate its responsibility to hear and confirm/deny President Obama’s nomination to the Court.
- Taking into account all that could possibly happen during a President’s term in office, it is naive and simplistic to attribute the destiny of society fully to the President’s possible nominations to the Supreme Court.
Don’t be lured into contorting your conscience based solely on the “Supreme Court Argument”.
A Call to American Christians
If you're a Christian in America, I call on you to consider all of your options for the presidency.
Do not believe the lie that you must somehow bend your conscience to vote for an “egotistical, bombastic, brash, empty, insulting, vindictive, unfaithful” candidate (Grudem’s depiction, not mine) as the leader of your nation's executive branch when the literal opposite thereof exists in other legitimate candidates for President in this election year.
0 comments:
Post a Comment