An old friend of mine recently said I was “either stubbornly prejudiced or a deluded member of a cult.” My sin? For saying that the “spirit of Trump wars against the Spirit of Christ, and I would have to deny the latter to support the former.”
The rationale for this decision has been given in my blog and by other evangelical leaders. As a Christ-follower, I just can’t cast a ballot for someone who had cheated on his wives and taxes, paid hush money to a porn star, tried to overthrow an election, convened a mob to march on the Capitol, promoted violence, extolled greed, peddled conspiracy theories, blackmailed an American ally, defamed POW and fallen warriors, mocked people with handicaps and found liable of sexual assault.
The Venn diagram between my faith and this convicted felon, pathological liar, and debased adulterer is an empty set. I can’t see how I have any other option, given Jesus’ command to “follow me.”
Tammy and I often ask ourselves, ” But what if we are wrong.” The Nobel Laureate physicist Richard Feynman once said, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” I hundred percent agree. If there’s anyone who deserves a skeptical eye, it’s our own selves. Between the 1-2-3 punch of cognitive biases, motivated thinking, and tribalist blinding and binding, truth struggles to break through. And that goes for me too.
So, is it possible that I’m on the wrong side of the decision despite those facts? Some friends would say yes, denying the existence of those facts. Other friends have chosen to overlook Trump’s flaws in deference to Trump’s former anti-abortion stance. As single-issue voters, they saw character deficiencies as second order through a utilitarian ethic where the ends justified the means if the ends meant restricting abortion.
Yet abortion rates rose under Trump after declining 30% under Obama. Abortion rates even rose following the Dobbs decision. And just a few days ago, Trump said, “My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights,” a “pro-life betrayal” that many, such as Andrew Walker, associate professor of Christian ethics at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called “morally wrong.” Given a lifetime of betrayal, whether it’s his wives, business associates, workers, or friends, it shouldn’t be surprising that Trump, out of his perceived self-interest, has betrayed these people, too.
Yet despite losing the anti-abortion trump card used by many to overlook Trump’s copious sins, his continued support among those called to be Christ’s Workmanship persists. Many in my social media accounts haven’t skipped a beat. Nor have many popular evangelical leaders such as Al Mohler, Franklin Graham, and Dutch Sheets. Some even extol his character. It’s a selling point to them.
As I’ve pondered this, it seems like there are various reasons why people continue to support Trump despite his persistent, ungodly attitudes and behavior.
Some are Genuinely In the Dark About Trump’s Nature
Many just don’t know. Some are simply uninterested in current affairs and don’t pay attention. Others see the world through a naïve but selective lens, where incoming news is filtered unintentionally, an outcome of past decisions, or a current living situation severely limiting the type of news in their lives.
Others don’t want to know. Their ignorance of Trump stems from willful decisions to avoid specific topics or informational news sources. Academics call this an epistemology of ignorance – a deliberate lack of understanding. The Japanese proverb about the three wise monkeys calls this “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” The goal is to avoid information or engagement in relationships that won’t invalidate how they interpret the world.
Most, I Think, Have Some Degree of Knowledge but Process It Differently
Consider all the factors that go into evaluating a political candidate. One’s personal values, beliefs, and specific policy issues, such as the economy, healthcare, or foreign affairs, all matter. A candidate’s character, track record, leadership style, and ability to address key national challenges also matter. So do party loyalty, endorsements, and debates. Sometimes, a candidate’s stance on single issues, such as abortion or climate change, is all that matters. Social influences like family and peer groups can also play significant roles in the choice.
This decision process may seem complex, but it’s nothing new. We routinely face other challenging decisions. We’re used to evaluating the pros and cons of situations and then assigning weights to the various factors involved. It’s just a matter of crunching the numbers, and we do it all the time.
But many decisions come with a bonus. Here, we don’t call balls and strikes in isolation. Our human nature kicks in, building layers of cognitive, tribal, and even neurological filters through which information comes in and judgments go out. Together, these filters modify our understandings, yielding differing epistemologies of knowledge, differing ideological/philosophical worldviews that define our life narratives, and a differing perspective on events through built-in algorithms like motivated reasoning.
We define and then see
Years ago, for example, a group of naïve scientists believed that providing a standard set of scientific facts to people with diverse views on climate change would bring them closer together. However, the exact opposite occurred: views diverged even further, with the most knowledgeable individuals distancing themselves the most from opposing perspectives. This phenomenon echoes a debate from nearly a century ago between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey about how truth is constructed. Lippmann argued that divided beliefs shape different worldviews, famously stating, “For the most part, we do not first see, and then define; we define and then see,” suggesting that our preconceived notions filter how we interpret facts, rather than facts reshaping our views.
There are few shared foundations
The likelihood of agreeing on a standard set of facts has become increasingly low. In today’s negatively polarized world, opposing groups view each other’s sources of information as illegitimate. One person’s “evidence” is another person’s “fake news,” and there is no common standard for adjudicating truth. In the recent book “One Nation, Two Realities,” Marietta and Barker state, “We are heading toward a post-truth political environment in which the objective truth is essentially irrelevant because everyone has their own version of it.”
Our teams “blind and bind”
The current tendency to “nut pick,” to normalize the most extreme views of the opposing side, deepens tribal divisions by creating distorted and polarized perceptions of the other group. It shields us from the more moderate perspectives of others and traps us in echo chambers where only our own views are validated. We become blind and bound to our tribes, as it reinforces our biases and strengthens our loyalty to our in-group by demonizing the out-group.
You witness this “truth” dynamic played out daily, especially in our politics and cultural disagreements. Take the following graph on immigration produced by the organization “More in Common.” They’ve found we’re much more alike and closer together than we think. Yet, we amplify partisan disagreements by viewing those on the other side as more extreme than they really are. All the while believing that we walk in “truth,” while the other side lacks “critical thinking.”
Hence, diverse viewpoints about Trump should be expected. You would expect many facts to be denied. You would expect in-group loyalty to be extreme, given the full-throated demonization of the other side. You would expect differential worldviews to yield scholarly articles on each side of Trump’s policies. And you would expect even those with a centrist viewpoint to arrive at differing positions.
For example, I developed my own scorecard on Trump’s policies based on a centrist ideology. Overall, it’s a tough score, especially with respect to foreign policy. Yet I’m sure I’m likely wrong on some accounts. My starting point is usually The Economist, which I then augment with various center-right and center-left credible sources. But I’m sure I’ve missed essential facts and insightful analyses. And I’m sure some of my cognitive biases are still in play, confirming a centrist worldview far from that of Trump’s.
But there’s no “team” perspective to shape my thinking. There’s no “other side” I must oppose. I don’t believe the world’s coming to a premature end. There’s no secret cabal of Satan-worshiping, child-trafficking elites controlling global institutions and the Democratic party. And although it’s not perfect, my calls of balls and strikes use a strike zone independent of tribal design. Yet I’m sure I’m likely wrong on some accounts.
So What Would Jesus Do?
But even a fair and evidenced-based strike zone isn’t the complete standard for Christ-followers. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Follow Me,” He willed the entire life of believers to imitate his life and teachings. We march to the beat of a different drummer, in accordance with the biblical understanding of “You are not your own.”
NT Wright has said, “Jesus’s resurrection was the beginning of God’s new project…to colonize earth with the life of heaven.” Tim Keller sees Christ-followers as those “radically committed to the good of the city as a whole.” Hence, “while awaiting the return of the King, we become part of God’s work of reconciliation, which is a state of the fullest, flourishing in every dimension – physical, emotional, social, and spiritual.”
Yet, answering the question, “What would Jesus do?” isn’t as simple as it sounds. His teachings and values transcend political parties and cannot fully align with any policy platform. His words, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” means that the vast difference between divine wisdom and human agendas is structural. We are fallen people who “see through a glass darkly.” While some policies from either side may advance human flourishing in ways that resonate with God’s Kingdom mission, others will fall short.
But we can be pretty sure what Jesus wouldn’t do. He wouldn’t characterize those made in His image as “It must take some sort of stupid to want another four years of what we had.” He wouldn’t falsely mock the opposing party by sharing a video of a little girl banging her head on a slide, followed by Kamala Harris’s picture captioned, “This explains so much.” I see such statements and other demeaning memes commonly posted by professing Christians, notwithstanding Christ’s words: “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [a statement of contempt], shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.”
And I can’t imagine Jesus supporting a person engaged in a lifetime of defilement, given His teaching, “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts: murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person.”
All of these defilements, except murder, characterize Trump to a “T.” They are a feature, not a bug, a fundamental part of Trump’s identity and lifetime practice.
What Should We Do?
I’ve heard many say, “I am not voting for a pastor.” I’ve seen others amplify a few cherry-picked sins by normalizing extreme opposing positions to laud their party, demonize the other, and justify the debasement of their candidate.
Scripture reminds us that we are “Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us,” meaning our actions should reflect His values. If Jesus wouldn’t approve of something, why should we? Even if we find ourselves uncertain about specific decisions, isn’t Trump’s deeply flawed character, as demonstrated over a lifetime of words and deeds, a clear reflection of a defiled heart?
George Washington once said, “Character was the first essential of a man.” My dad made character the priority of his discipline. The Psalmist said, “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but whoever takes crooked paths will be found out.” Jesus said, “By their fruit you will recognize them… Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.”
So, if I make good character a litmus test for my vote, am I a stubbornly prejudiced/deluded member of a cult? Or am I merely a follower of Dad’s/Washington’s sensibilities? Or perhaps I’m even a faithful ambassador of Jesus, mindful of my responsibility to make God’s appeal through my life, actions, and values?