Another friend from church, Evan Mazunik, posted a comment on Facebook with a link to this article, by Samuel Whitefield " Four Issues to Consider Before You Vote Trump – What is Really at Stake and said this: "I found the following article convicting & illuminating: '...a Clinton presidency is not the biggest thing at stake in this election. The biggest thing at stake in this election is the church’s prophetic voice to the culture.'"

In the article linked to, Samuel Whitefield shares his concern that “the church”, and in particular “the evangelical church” is too closely tied with politics; and again too closely tied in particular with the Republican party.

He obviously took a long time to research and write his 20 page, 9,000-word article; and I don’t have the time to react to all of it. I just have these three things to say in response:

(1)  There is no “the evangelical church”. Yes, some religious leaders or organizations have come out in public support of Trump, but evangelicals are fragmented. There is no longer a “moral majority” with political power. Even the Tea Party movement (which is not necessarily evangelical) is not unified.

    Whitefield says “Now is the time for the church to break free of every political machine in order to become a prophetic voice to the nation.”; and closely below that says “As a church we have put too little value on our call to be a prophetic witness to the nation. We have allowed the siren call of political saviors to obscure our higher calling to function in society as a voice with a single allegiance.”

To have a prophetic voice with a single allegiance, requires a unified Body of Christ. When Christians can’t even agree on what style of music leads to the most sincere worship, agreement on a highly complex political issue or candidate is a pipe dream.

(2)  America (or “the evangelical church”) is not necessarily looking for a savior. But a super majority says the country is headed in the wrong direction. The “Church” has a prophetic role to play, but it is not to inveigh against a particular candidate for president or advocate for another. Its prophetic role is to lift up Jesus as the Savior and preach that we have hope only in God leading Christians to trust in Jesus and non-Christians to see the hopelessness of trusting in any person.

(3)  Yes, there are several evangelical pastors and leaders who have endorsed Trump. They get the headlines and TV appearances. However, there is no single leader of evangelical Christians, so who does Whitefield endorse to be the “prophetic voice” that will effectively separate “the evangelical church” from the Republican party or from Trump?

In conclusion, Samuel Whitefield is a voice on the same side of the argument as John Mark Reynolds. Wayne Grudem (and others not cited) are on the opposite side. The argument is whether a Christian (or “the evangelical church”) can, should, or should not support Donald Trump. Each has an opinion, and each argument is pretty much one-sided. Each speaks for himself; none speak for me.

I’ve enjoyed the discussion, friends. Now I think I better get back to my main responsibilities.

Philosophers Argue On Whether A Vote For Trump Is Moral. I'm still left with a dilemma.

Two well-known Christian philosophy professors disagree on whether voting for Trump is a positive moral choice or a "wicked deed" that will stain any person who does so.

After reading both of them (see links below), I am still left with a dilemma: is there a Christian reason, a moral reason, to vote for Trump, Clinton, or neither?

I like my friend Ken Roberts' take on the situation--"I personally believe we have two lousy presidential candidates; but one of them will be our next president. At this point we must shift our thinking and decide which of the two parties will best represent my values."  (See his complete comment at  https://www.facebook.com/ken.roberts.5836/posts/1362735437089056 .)

I too have concluded that I have to shift from trying to choose which of two extremely undesirable candidates would make the best president (or the least worst president) to decide which party would best represent my values. I even like that he said "my values" because each voter has to decide that for himself or herself.

The articles in question are:

Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice, by Wayne Grudem, and A Good Man Justifies a Wicked Deed: Grudem on Trump, by John Mark Reynolds.

I originally said that I was also a long-time fan of John Mark Reynolds, but I saw that he wrote for Patheos.com and I confused him with another Patheos.com writer, Mark D. Roberts (whom I heartily recommend).  I can hear and agree with the anguish in Reynold's post about Grudem's article concerning the moral dilemma intrinsic in this year's election. I want to agree with Grudem. And, I can't find any of Reynolds' complaints about Trump that I disagree with. So I am left with without any candidate I can vote for without feeling disgusted.

Yet, in the end, I must decide. The Supreme Court argument Grudem makes is a strong one, although it leaves me with the feeling that I'm making an "end justifies the means" choice. Or perhaps more to the point, I feel like I'm in one of those bad moral choices offered in an ethics class which presents two options that are both unthinkable--a true moral dilemma. And, unlike Captain Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test, we can't just change the rules (or "cheat") to come up with a third alternative.

Not to decide is to decide, but the lazy way to do it. Not to vote is to vote, and is also the lazy way to do it.

After my original comment on Facebook, I needed to add this. Having re-read the articles by both Grudem and Reynolds, I have one complaint about the one by Reynolds. He excoriates Trump for his character (rightly in my view) and says he is “manifestly unworthy of the office of President of the United States.” He categorically states that “if we follow Professor Grudem’s advice we will lose this election and lose all moral authority to say character counts in the White House.

But Reynolds does not, in this article, give the reader a similar critique of Hillary Clinton (or even a link to another article with a similar critique of her character). Is the reader to infer that if we vote for Clinton, or don’t vote at all, we will retain the moral authority to say that character counts in the White house?

Grudem is not balanced either—he does cite some of Trump’s “flaws”, but devotes most of his article to giving reasons to vote for him anyway, many of them tied to the current and future vacancies in the Supreme Court. Reynolds does not acknowledge even one possible reason for voting for Trump (or against Clinton); and in spite of having the Supreme Court seal accompanying his article, he does not address Grudem’s argument on this point at all. In fact, he doesn’t even mention the Court.

Reynolds, like Grudem, is a well-known author and professor. After reading his response to Grudem, I checked out his biography and some additional Patheos posts; and I’m very impressed. Had he mentioned or linked to his Patheos post from July 29, 2016, “Maybe Cyrus is Cyrus: Pray God sends Help” his one-sided critique on July 30, 2016 would be easier to accept. However, even in that blog post there is not a good answer. For this election, it does not appear that God is sending a Cyrus to save the day.

Again, I don’t find anything Reynolds wrote about Trump’s character that I can deny.

I am still left with the dilemma that Ken Roberts stated so clearly: one of them will be president. How should I vote? I will pray and I will vote.

Likely, though, I’ll not be voting for the candidate but for the party that I think will give better the country what is needed for the next four years.