The Virtue Signaling Death Wish of Evangelicalism
Published on : December 24, 2019 Published by : Capstone Report
Supporting Donald Trump in order to avoid persecution is not a betrayal of Christian morals.
Erick Erickson says many good things. He also says many incorrect things. Today he illustrated what's wrong with Evangelicalism in America—the lack of solid biblical and systematic theology to deal with politics. A robust Political Theology is needed.
Unfortunately, Erickson and his fellow travelers like David French or Russell Moore, the former Democratic congressional staffer and Immigration advocate leading the Southern Baptist Convention's ERLC, provide shallow virtue signaling piety over real substance. Instead, look to real theologians like William Lane Craig, Wanye Grudem, Norman Geisler, and Robert A. J. Gagnon.
Erickson tweeted a thread on politics and faith where he created a false dilemma between fighting for religious liberty and compromising our Christian standards. He tweeted, "Christ says persecution will come to the church. We don't need to want it. I support religious freedom. Persecution will come in other ways. But demanding Christians compromise their moral standards to protect themselves is heresy."
Christ says persecution will come to the church. We don't need to want it. I support religious freedom. Persecution will come in other ways. But demanding Christians compromise their moral standards to protect themselves is heresy.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) December 24, 2019
This is a false dilemma. A Christian does not compromise their morality when supporting a lesser evil (or greater good). This misunderstands moral reasoning. Also, it doesn't comprehend voting.
Moral Reasoning 101 with Dr. William Lane Craig
First, moral choices aren't always between good and bad. Sometimes, in a fallen world beset with sin, our moral choices are bad and even worse. William Lane Craig produced an excellent podcast in November 2016 on this very topic. Here are a few key quotes:
"I think there is a kind of immaturity among some people about moral decision-making where they think that moral decision-making is a matter of choosing between the good alternative and the bad alternative. That is a very naïve, almost childish, view of moral decision-making. We are frequently confronted with moral choices in which we have no good alternatives or, alternatively, we have two good alternatives to choose from and you have to then choose between two goods. But sometimes you have to choose between two bads.
"Intro courses in philosophy or ethics major on this point by presenting moral dilemmas to clarify students' values. For example, a textbook illustration is the runaway streetcar example where if you do not throw the switch the streetcar will hit and kill a man working on the tracks. But if you do throw the switch then the streetcar will kill five people who are on the tracks. So which choice do you make? You don't have a good choice in a case like that. There are two bad outcomes and you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
"I think the most poignant illustration of this point is Sophie's Choice where the young mother is presented by the Nazi soldiers with a choice as to which of her children will be sent to the death camp and which one she can keep alive. If she refuses to choose one of her two children then both will be sent to the death camps. In a case like this, this poor mother had no good choice. She had to choose the lesser of two evils and pick one of her two children to be exterminated. It is just horrible.
"Similarly, in a case like this, we didn't have two good candidates to choose from. Both were flawed in multiple ways, and the outcomes were flawed in multiple ways. Yet, that doesn't exempt you from having to make a decision in a case like this. You choose the lesser of two evils – which outcome would be better for the United States of America than the other? I think, as you already indicated, the implications for the Supreme Court are just huge in this case. We were choosing which President would be appointing not only the replacement for the late Antonin Scalia but perhaps for other justices as well. That could radically affect the direction of the Supreme Court for a generation to come."
Please, read the transcript and listen to the podcast. Dr. Craig says something critical that deals with the immaturity from the likes of Russell Moore and Erick Erickson on this issue.
Obey the Greater Commandments when Voting
This isn't consequentialism or an ends justify the means argument either. Rather, Christians must analyze the situation and decide what rules apply.
Philosopher and Theologian Norman Geisler explains that results matter. He wrote, "The Christian ethic does not neglect results. Although results do not determine what is right, they may influence one's ethical decisions. For example, a Christian should calculate which direction a gun is pointing before pulling the trigger. Drivers need to estimate the possible consequence of their speed in relation to other objects."
In other words, Christians when voting decide what issues are at stake and have the highest priority.
This is important because often rules will conflict. Ordinarily, one would prefer to avoid voting an adulterer into office; however, when the alternative is a baby murder supporter, the higher moral obligation trumps the lesser.
This is a cornerstone of Dr. Norm Geisler's Christian-based moral decision making. Since God's commands bind us, we must obey the higher God-given commands. This is affirmed in Scripture, and Geisler details these in his book Christian Ethics.
We've proposed using Graded Absolutism as a model for Christian voting.
According to Geisler, "graded absolutism holds that our responsibility is to obey the greater commandment, and we are not guilty for not following the lesser conflicting commandment."
This is important for Christians. There is a reason the great evangelical systematic theologians like Craig, Geisler and Wayne Grudem supported this type of lesser evil or greater good voting—they understand the world is fallen and we must engage it as is—and not as we wish it were.
Evangelicals love affair with persecution
There is another thing that stands out in Erickson's tweet thread—a high view of persecution. This is a trend in modern evangelicalism. Some of this is created by a very Baptist way of reading history—where even Constantine (the emperor who ended the persecution of Christians) was evil and continued to persecute the true church.
However, there is more to it—there is a sincere desire to have a true believer's church. There is a feeling that persecution would purge the unbelievers. However, any reading of the heresies encountered during the New Testament era, should counter such arguments.
Also, the Chinese church endured generations of persecution. Yes, it is growing, but heresies are rampant in the church there too. So, heresy is not simply a problem in the decadent West.
Persecution may be inevitable in the West. It may come to America. However, we should seek prudent means of avoiding it.
One prudent way is to understand how the Bible and moral philosophy encourage a vote for Donald Trump over any Democratic candidate.
Petition, fundraiser launched for Pro-Trump Professor fired by Baptist seminary
The Tyranny of the Never Trump Evangelical Elite
5 thoughts on "The Virtue Signaling Death Wish of Evangelicalism"
Erickson, French, Moore, and other morally obtuse evangelicals are very selective with their phony tut-tutting. They've been hopping mad for more than three years now that the rest of us ignored their instructions not to vote for Trump. They know that 80% of evangelicals DID vote for Trump, and it stings them to no end to realize that they have no power over us, and that they are not held in high regard. According to the standards being issued by these self-appointed Dudley Do-rights, the only "Christ-like" option a Christian has at any election is to sit it out, not vote—in the country founded by our Christian ancestors for crying out loud.
Who do these people think they are? From what source do they imagine they derive any moral authority? Where was their moral outrage throughout the Obama presidency? Where was it during the Bush presidency? Which candidate SHOULD we have voted for? You could go through the entire list of 2016 POTUS candidates and find all sorts of godless moral rot running through their actual policy proposals. Everyone one of them except for Trump and Rand Paul sounded like, among other things, a bloodthirsty neocon warmonger. Slaves to the permanent war pathology that has brought irreparable ruin to this nation. Christ said "Blessed are the peacemakers." Does that count for anything?
John Dedeaux says:
Excellent comment. Thank you.
Martin Greltzig says:
'Who do these people think they are? From what source do they imagine they derive any moral authority? Where was their moral outrage throughout the Obama presidency? Where was it during the Bush presidency?'
They think they are more right than others (a common human defect) Like us they derive their moral authority from God, though, unlike us, they tend to see Nationalism (Ole Testament stuff) as a hindrance, this because, if you focus heavily on the letters of Paul, you could come away with the thinking that race, nationality, customs, and, even,individuality are outmoded concepts in the new covenant.
As to where they were in previous presidencies ? : ——- they were not so well formed, funded, or organized as now, nor did they need to voice their One World Corporate Globalist views so loudly, because things were going that way.
Since the last years of the Obama Administration, however, international nationalist rebellion has arisen, and, thus, they are being paid to scream for those who feel threatened.
They are not going to win, though, they are so well entrenched, it will take decades to root them out – one trench at a time.
One World Order Globalist types are right to scream about Trump, and, as well, Trump voters, at every turn, the reason being that, the longer Trump is in office, the more unfavourable the culture and the courts are to them, and, with that, their prospects dim.
CML says:
Thank you for the straightforward and on point editorial.