The Presidential Election Conundrum for Christians, Is There One?

I have been thinking for a long time about what my Christian faith should lead me to do in this  "election of deplorables".  After all, both candidates seem so greedy and corrupt each in their own way.  The Donald, he of vain big hair and odious self-centered vulgarness has wantonly built towers of profit up and over "the little guy", using eminent domain law to force homeowners to sell in order to make way for his massive constructs of opulence, many of which now block vistas to the rivers for long incumbent New York apartment dwellers, "little guys".

And... just recently we are treated to "locker room talk" that would make most guys I know say, "dude, really?", even in the locker room or wherever.

And on the other hand we have an altruistically oriented candidate who claims to be an active "social gospel Methodist", and says that she "prays daily 'for discernment, for wisdom, for strength, for courage … ”.   (Religion News, 1/19/16).  

A women active in the church, who prays daily, carries a bible in her purse always (ibid) and whose husband was also an active churchgoer during his presidency (unlike our current president).  Despite their naked political ambition and sexual assault enabling, this First Couple seems so well meaning when it comes to the well-being of our citizenry, while Mr. Trump stays high level, promises jobs and a conservative supreme court. 

Yet, the same article quoted immediately above, while largely favorable to Ms. Clinton quotes her in saying what I view as a non-starter as a Christian voter.  Ms. Clinton is on record as saying that churches must knuckle under to her politically correct views on abortion and gay marriage.    We won't rehash the confessional position of my church (LCMS) and other biblically confessional churches versus the theologically liberal protestant churches that are little more than secular charitable foundations at this point.

Or maybe will.  Just a little bit.

Scripture virtually screams to confessional Christians on these issues.  Sadly, we cannot find any evidence in scripture that "God is trying something new" with regard to homosexuality, transexualism and the rest.   To believe that these behaviors and abortion are not sinful is to risk eternal damnation.  And what kind of Christian is willing to walk that tight rope, let alone encourage their parishioners too?   The gist is that turning sin into not sin kills consciousness of sin and therefore kill repentance and therefore risks damning the soul.

Of course many of these "reform" liberal churches such as social gospel Methodist don't even preach on heaven and hell anymore.  Why not?  Scripture hasn't changed.  Oh right.  Scripture for them merely "contains" the Word of God and therefore.... well you get the gist.

Lutheran writerr and Bonhoeffer* scholar Eric Metaxas has written several articles on this topic, today in the Wall Street Journal (you must subscribe to read, unless you Google it) as well as this article in the Christian Post.  In both articles, Mr. Metaxas focuses mostly on what Hillary  will do to the Supreme Court as president and how appointing liberal judges will banish forever the constitutionalist vision of the Founders, especially concerning the true meaning of the first amendment (you know, the one about religious freedom).   While I am sure he is thinking of the the sharpest quote Hillary has had for confessional and Roman Catholic Christians ("churches must toe the line on abortion and gay marriage").  I am surprised that he mentions it only implicitly vis a vis the constitutional/supreme court implications of a Hillary presidency.

Issues etc.,  a popular confessional Lutheran radio network, has leaned into the Christian voting issue recently.   In a recent broadcast and still posted radio segment it is mentioned "Christians don't just vote for ourselves, we vote for the good of the republic, vis a vis Christian values."  Donald Trump has promised to appoint originalist constitutional judges, which should preserve the core values of the Founders and, as Mr. Metaxas says, "at least back us up five feet from the cliff" of no return, constitutionally.  Mr. Metaxas does not see Mr. Trump as a saver of the Republic but mostly a stop-gap in this regard.

What Mr. Metaxas fails to do, in either of his articles (and this is not necessarily a criticism because I am sure he would agree) is point out the most odious manifestation of Hillary's liberal theological and political mandate,  putting churches under the government with regard to abortion, gay marriage and, most probably tax exempt status.  He does cite the Oregon case of the Christian bakers who were put out of business by the state for acting on their Christian conscience for refusing to serve at a lesbian wedding.

So while Mr. Metaxas is broader in his assessment of the danger of a Clinton return to the White House for confessional Christians, I think Ms. Clinton has laid out her own sharp mandate which forces our hand.  Not voting is a vote for her.  And while we can't realistically expect a return to the more deeply Christian principles of past years in our Republic, we can put the odious sinner among us who will keep our churches relatively free of the kind of government restraint we now see in the state churches of secular Europe.

Mr. Metaxas understands that what makes our republic great for Christians is that in it, we have the freedom to be Christians.  This must stand.   Hillary is not a confessional Christian but rather a social gospelist and therefore does not understand that.  She feels that personal sexual expression must take precedence over "biblical dogma" around things like abortion and gay marriage.  She chooses Freud over Jesus in that regard and would likely force our churches to do so as well, by dint of her Supreme Court picks if not executive mandate, based on her past statements irrespective of aging Justices.

I would rather have a repentant vulgarian, self aggrandizing groping womanizer in the white house than an avowed enemy of confessional Christianity.    Indeed, we have had many sinners in the White House, 44 to be exact.  I prefer one who publicly displays at least a modicum of repentance rather than continuing to lie, cover up and generally prevaricate around their own sin nature.

As always, this is just my personal opinion and does reflect any official opinion of my church or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

*Deitrich Bonhoeffer is a well known Lutheran anti-Nazi martyr that you should know about if you don't.