It’s almost over…this never-ending election cycle, and I don’t know /mabout you, but I’m exhausted. As if the 24/7 news cycle and un-ending social media firestorm weren’t enough, the evangelical political industrial complex is in overdrive, and the message is clear – Trump or else.
Back in May, we all rolled our eyes and chuckled with incredulity when Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden quipped, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black” I mean, who in their right mind would make such a comment? Turns out that Joe Biden is in good company.
Back in August, we learned that Grace Community Church long-time Senior Pastor John MacArthur told President Trump “any real, true believer” of Christianity
will be forced to vote for him in November, due to the conflicting ideologies between the Democratic party’s platform and a belief in Jesus Christ.”
With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur, in other words, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for Biden or Trump, then you ain’t a real, true Christian.” Not sure about you, but I’m not rolling my eyes or chuckling in incredulity on this one. In point of fact, I was deeply grieved that such an esteemed modern father of our faith would hold such a view, let along speak it aloud.
While I’d like to call this a “one off,” I’m afraid I can’t. My newsfeed has been flooded with multiple prominent “evangelical leaders” who have instructed me that – as an Evangelical Christian – I have but one choice at the proverbial ballot box on Tuesday. By now, most of these are not a surprise. These were the same “evangelical leaders” who supported Trump in 2016 and have never wavered from their position. Nevertheless, one particular individuals “Trump or else” endorsement dropped into my inbox last evening, and I couldn’t help but explore the apparent Damascus Road transformation which this evangelical leader has experienced.
On Monday, Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr posted an article entitled, “Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election” to his website. According to the “About the Author” section, Dr. Mohler is “a theologian and ordained minister, and serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.” Though he has never served as its president, Mohler has been involved in the Southern Baptist Convention for many years and is not an unfamiliar name in evangelical, particularly Southern Baptist, circles.
As a follow-up to the April revelation that Mohler would be supporting Trump in the November election, Monday’s “exhortation” is articulate, well organized, and concise. “I will try to summarize how I see the issues, trying my best to think and act consistent with my own Christian convictions and worldview,” Mohler writes. While he joins a long list of prominent evangelicals who have announced their intent to vote for Trump, Mohler is different. “I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016. Repulsed by his character and unable to see him as a conservative, I voted for neither major party candidate. I
made a symbolic vote. I had to hope that Hillary Clinton would not be elected president, but it seemed almost determined. As we know now, it was not.”
In 2016, Mohler wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post entitled “Donald Trump has created an excruciating moment for evangelicals” (link below, but subscription required). He described Donald Trump as a “crisis of conscience” for religious conservatives. In the same article, Mohler described Hillary Clinton as “a threat to values and causes we see as vital to human flourishing.” Despite this, he asserted that his fellow evangelical leaders were wrong “to serve as apologists for Donald Trump” whom he described as a “sexual predator.” He openly questioned, “How could ‘family values voters’ support a man who had, among other things, stated openly that no man’s wife was safe with him in the room? A casino titan who posed for the cover of Playboy magazine? A man who boasted that he did not repent of his (well-documented) sins and would not?”
“I am among those who see evangelical support for Trump as a horrifying embarrassment – a price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay,” he wrote. Evangelical leaders must be stewards of their influence, he added, noting that “leaders are held to a much higher standard, and continued public arguments that offer cover for Donald Trump are now not only implausible but excruciating.”
Mohler concluded by declaring the “marriage of convenience” between Evangelicals and the Republican Party was over.
In Monday’s missive, Mohler doesn’t mince words when it comes to his opinion of Donald Trump’s character:
“There is the question of character. I have had to struggle with this question through about a half-century of political engagement. In the case of Donald
Trump, the reality is that he is sadly deficient in many of the most crucial issues of character and moral virtue. He has bragged about many of his vices,
written books promoting them, and given full vent to some of the baser instincts of the body politic. He appears to be driven by a narcissistic impulse
that overrides nearly every opportunity to demonstrate moral virtues in public. He has been married to three women and has bragged about infidelity. He
is divisive, arrogant, vitriolic, and sometimes cruel.”
So, Dr. Mohler…tell us how you really feel?
In June of this year, in an interview with Isaac Chotiner of The New Yorker, Mohler was asked:
You said, in 2016, “Perhaps the best we can hope for in this sad election cycle with these two unsupportable candidates is that we do not allow a national
disgrace to become the Great Evangelical Embarrassment.” Trump is now supported by a huge majority of American evangelicals. Has it been an embarrassment?
Mohler replied:
Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing. So I have to make a distinction between voting for a candidate and rationalizing for a candidate, much less being enthusiastic about what I would see as the character faults of a candidate. I intend to vote for Donald Trump in 2020,
but my shift is from reluctantly not voting for him in 2016 to what you might call reluctantly voting for him in 2020, and hoping for his reelection, because
the alternative is increasingly unthinkable. But I will not become an apologist for the misbehavior of the President and for what I see as glaring deficiencies
in his private and public character.
…”reluctantly not voting for him in 2016″…seriously? If that was reluctance, I’d hate to see “vehemently opposed.”
So, why the shift?
In 2016, despite his belief that Hillary Clinton was “a threat to values and causes we see as vital to human flourishing,” Mohler could not – in good conscience – vote for Trump and voted for a third-party candidate, despite his apparent expectation that Clinton would win the election. Now, all of a sudden, he is voting for Trump as a matter of conscience, “because the alternative is increasingly unthinkable,” now not only willing, but eager to pay the “ price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay.”
But wait, there’s more.
In an October 1, article in the Financial Times entitled, “Why Evangelicals are Flocking to Trump,” Mohler explains why he did not vote for Trump in 2016:
“I found myself in the position of not believing that Donald Trump could win the general election, and not wanting evangelicals to crash our evangelical reputation on Trumpism.”
Now that it is apparent that “Trumpism” has prevailed for the past four years, Mohler states:
“I cannot imagine the idea of supporting the Democratic party given its current direction in control of both the legislature and the executive branch of government.”
So, while his 2016 Washington Post op-ed clearly communicates that Mohler did not vote for Trump in 2016 because of the character of the man himself, his candid remarks to the Financial Times seem to indicate that his vote – or lack thereof – was more about not wanting to pick a loser. Now, in October of 2020, just days before the election, he informs us that he has already voted for Trump as a matter of conscience. Go figure.
Despite all of his rhetorical flailing around, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Mohler – that – as an Evangelical Christian – my vote and the candidate for whom I cast that vote is a matter of conscience, and yours should be, too. Despite what today’s “evangelical leaders” infer, I can promise you with 100% certainty that a “no” vote for Donald J. Trump will not blot your name out of the Lamb’s Book of Life.
God is Sovereign, and He’s got this…even if Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. does not.
Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election How the Head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Came Around to Trump Why US evangelicals are flocking to Trump
I really do appreciate Dr. Mohler and understand the pragmatism behind his shift. This line in “The New Yorker” captures a tension, “I intend to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, but my shift is from reluctantly not voting for him in 2016 to what you might call reluctantly voting for him in 2020, and hoping for his reëlection, because the alternative is increasingly unthinkable. But I will not become an apologist for the misbehavior of the President and for what I see as glaring deficiencies in his private and public character.” He acknowledges two realities in tension (morals vs. character) and decides holding a cultural morality line is more important than sending a character accountability message. I get it; it’s a tough spot. But this same thinking has caused many in American Evangelicalism, not the least of which being within the SBC itself, to overlook character flaws in high profile pastors and churches because of the cultural impact of those ministries (i.e., abusive pastors, climates of fear, financial impropriety, sexual abuse and infidelity, misogyny, etc. And often left knowingly unaddressed until the evidence is exposed by outsiders or victims). “Bad guys doing good things” has been a serious problem in the Evangelical Church, and Mohler’s thinking skirts along the same lines. I think the core of the challenge is that American Evangelicalism sees the crumbling of the West as first and foremost “a drift from morals” as opposed to “a drift from character.” Yet, in my estimation, morals don’t drive character; character empowers morals (good morals, bad morals, and the most dangerous of all, bad morals that are seen as good). Thus, if we’re willing to excuse character to accomplish a moral outcome, we will actually invite the demise of both in a way similar to the “frog in the kettle.” I think about this even something as important as the morals of “Law and Order.” Law and Order – with character – will create equity and peacemaking in the name of cultural morality. Law and Order – without character – will create tyranny and division in the name of cultural morality. All morality swings on the hinges of character, or as Jesus said, “A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit. A tree is identified by its fruit.” To be honest, my thoughts here are far less about the President and voting and far more about our need to reevaluate as Evangelicals how we understand means, ends, and the importance of character as the road to Christ-honoring outcomes.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you write.
I do appreciate that Mohler is one of the few major Evangelical leaders out there who has actually acknowledged that Trump is morally bankrupt, and though he has done a 180 on his political perspective, he hasn’t wavered in his personal one.
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, however, when you said that you appreciate the “pragmatism behind his shift.”
I think that is what I find most fascinating in all of this.
In 2016, he makes it perfectly clear that he fully believed that Hillary would be elected President, and yet – voting on his principles – he could not, in good conscience, “pull the lever” for Trump even though he fully believed that a Trump loss would subject the country to four, possibly eight, years of a liberal administration, and all that entails. . Now, four years later, his pragmatism concerning the possibility of subjecting the country to a liberal administration for the next four years suddenly makes his “yes” vote for Trump a matter of conscience, because as he writes:
“I truly believe that this presidential election, with the control of the Senate also clearly at stake, is likely to be transformational. The stakes just keep getting higher. The difference between a Trump administration and a Biden administration will shape a generation and have a very great deal to do with the future of our nation. My convictions lead me to a very clear conclusion in this election.”
Did he not believe that the 2016 election was “transformational” that would “shape a generation?” I sure did, as did nearly every Evangelical I know.
Clearly, something shook his confidence and catapulted him off his principled stand on character and into his pragmatic “marriage of convenience” with Donald Trump. This begs the question, what was the tipping point?
I took a good hard look at the 2016 platform of Hillary Clinton and the 2020 platform of Joe Biden (compiled comparison posted below), and they are virtually identical – sometimes, even word for word – on nearly every issue – from immigration to universal healthcare to free college to LGBTQ rights to unions and much, much more. Therefore, I can only conclude that there is nothing there to cause such an about face for Mohler.
This is confirmed by this from his “Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election” article:
“…I agree that there are many other issues that press on the Christian conscience—questions of economic policy and foreign affairs and energy and the stewardship of the earth. The searing pain of racial injustice and the unraveling of our social fabric demand Christian response and urgency. Christians must be concerned about questions of immigration policy and refugees – and these issues defy the simplifications of the sound-bite and tweet culture.
But human dignity and the sanctity of human life are even more basic truths, and I believe there is no hope for defending human dignity for all if it is denied in the womb. To be intellectually responsible is to recognize the array of issues confronting us, but the same intellectual responsibility demands that we know which questions are prior to others and on which truths the entire superstructure of human dignity and human rights depend.”
In other words, it’s all about abortion. Not only is it all about abortion, but Mohler writes, “Just consider the fact that a Biden-Harris administration would be, by any honest account, the most pro-abortion political force in American history.”
He expounds on this with several examples:
“Biden has already indicated that he would immediately put the Obama Administration contraception mandate back in place…” An expected 2016 Hillary win in 2016 would have never seen this removed.
“The Democratic Party has also decried other forms of conscience protection and would deny religious liberty to Christian cake-bakers, wedding photographers, and pharmacists.” – This would most certainly have been true under Hillary, as well.
“Christians in many medical fields will face the reduction or removal of conscience protections related to abortion.” – Still true under Hillary, had she been elected as expected back in 2016.
“These are not idle threats. The legal establishment of the Democratic Party is eager to press these agendas.” – Yep, the same Democratic Party that was eager to push these agendas back in 2016 when Mohler’s conscience-based stand on character was virtually guaranteed (per his thinking at the time) to put Hillary straight into the White House.
Part 2:
I completely disagree with Mohler’s assertion that the Biden/Harris administration would be the most “pro-abortion political force in American history.” Don’t get me wrong, there’s no question they are “pro-abortion,” but since he has submitted this statement as an explanation as to why he is voting for Trump now as a matter of conscience in direct contrast to his vote in the Clinton/Trump race of 2016, he appears to be suggesting that Biden (driven left by Harris) is more “pro-abortion” than Hillary.
During the Third Presidential Debate on October 19, 2016, Chris Wallace asked Hillary:
Q: What about the issue of late-term, partial-birth abortions?
CLINTON: Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account.
The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get: that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.
…and.in case that wasn’t clear enough…[same debate]:
Q: You’ve been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?
A: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.”
While there are a myriad of other political issues around abortion, from a sanctity of life perspective, I think the issue of third term abortion hits to the very heart of the issue. As an evangelical Christian, there is absolutely no way I can even begin to wrap my head around – nor vote for – someone who would advocate for the termination of a life inside the womb that medical science and everyone on both sides of the issue fully recognize as viable. Mohler writes, “This tears at my heart like no other issue,” and I get that…he’s not alone.
My point is, however, that By any honest account, a Hillary Clinton administration was every bit as dangerous to the unborn and a “a threat to values and causes we see as vital to human flourishing” as Mohler described her back in 2016 as the Biden/Harris administration would be today. And yet, in 2016, Mohler was willing to risk a nation under Hillary by taking a stand on principle – a risk he is no longer willing to take in 2020, because – in his estimation – the stakes are somehow higher. And, what about God’s sovereignty? Is he now suggesting that the Almighty God which was apparently so capable of handling the situation back in 2016, is no longer up to the task in 2020? Apparently, God now requires Mohler’s vote of pragmatism, because a vote of principle just won’t get the job done.
In his most recent article, Mohler writes:
“Having argued loudly for the resignation of President Bill Clinton on national television many times over in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky affair, I felt that I could not vote for Donald Trump without hypocrisy. I even went so far as to say that if I voted for Donald Trump I would have to apologize to Bill Clinton.”
I don’t know (and don’t care) if he apologizes to Bill Clinton; however, I do wholeheartedly – passionately – believe that Dr. Mohler owes an apology to all of the evangelical leaders he so boldly criticized in 2016whom he described as wrong “to serve as apologists for Donald Trump”…a “sexual predator.”
“How could ‘family values voters’ support a man who had, among other things, stated openly that no man’s wife was safe with him in the room? A casino titan who posed for the cover of Playboy magazine? A man who boasted that he did not repent of his (well-documented) sins and would not?”
“I am among those who see evangelical support for Trump as a horrifying embarrassment – a price for possible political gain that is simply unthinkable and too high to pay.”
“leaders are held to a much higher standard, and continued public arguments that offer cover for Donald Trump are now not only implausible but excruciating.”
Pot…kettle…black.