Category: politics

The American Independent Party of George Wallace Fame Nominates Trump/Pence for President

Of course, this means almost nothing in the great scheme of things but it does illustrate to whom Trump appeals.


The AIP supported segregationist George Wallace in 1968 and former League of the South board member Michael Peroutka in 2004. The League gave their support to Peroutka as well. In fairness, it is also true that the party supported Alan Keyes in 2008.
According to Robinson, the AIP will be on the ballot along with Republican.


One can read the Christian Reconstructionist sounding platform of the AIP at their website.

The Futility of Donald Trump's Johnson Amendment Promise: Most Pastors Don't Want to Endorse Political Candidates

trump donate campaignCBN’s The Brody File reported yesterday that Donald Trump will speak to a group of pastors in Florida about repealing the Johnson Amendment.

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump will be speaking to hundreds of pastors this Thursday in Orlando, Florida. This is a private event sponsored by the American Renewal Project. Trump will speak to them about his push to repeal the Johnson Amendment. The law, which has been in place for decades, is perceived by some Christians as making it more difficult for pastors to speak out on political issues and candidates from the pulpit.

Correction: the amendment doesn’t prevent speaking on “political issues.” It does prohibit all tax-exempt organizations from campaigning or advocating for specific candidates.  Here is the IRS guidance on the matter:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The prohibition is about campaigning for a person, not speaking out on issues. Ministers may speak about any issue and even speak in favor of a candidate, but they may not involve their churches in partisan campaign activities. It is very sad to me that any minister would want to use the church of Christ to promote a candidate but since some would, I am actually glad that the Johnson Amendment exists.
Many Christian supporters of Trump (e.g., Eric Metaxas today) think it is a big deal that Trump wants to pursue a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. If one can rely on surveys, many pastors don’t agree. According to a Christianity Today analysis, most pastors don’t want to endorse specific candidates from the pulpit or on behalf of the church. For instance, CT cited a Lifeway Research survey which found that a whopping 87% of pastors disagreed with the statement: “Pastors should endorse candidates for public office from the pulpit.” Only 29% of a Pew Research sample of Protestants and Catholics felt that churches should endorse candidates during elections.
I am glad a majority of ministers don’t want to use the church as a political tool. Doing so subordinates the mission of the church to political aims. Taking sides also risks alienating church members who disagree. Those members can feel coerced to vote consistently with the church endorsement.
Furthermore, the IRS isn’t enforcing the law. According to CT, thousands of pastors have violated the law (just think of that when you hear Trump say he’s the law and order candidate), but the IRS hasn’t done much about it.  Trump’s Johnson Amendment promise is just another substance-free hook to hoodwink evangelical voters and soothe the doubts of evangelical endorsers.
Brody’s analysis of the Florida event is a pretty good argument why the Johnson Amendment isn’t currently relevant to what churches actually do. Brody said:

Events like this one will be crucial to Trump if he wants to beat Hillary Clinton. The reality is that evangelical pastors are a major key ingredient to mobilizing the masses. They hold great power over a captive audience every week in the pews. Trump needs them engaged. If they are, the flocks will typically follow. The result? A bottom up approach that will affect turnout exponentially. The top down approach of receiving key endorsements won’t do squat unless the evangelicals sitting in the pews are motivated. Trump shouldn’t assume that the anti-Hillary sentiment will be all he needs. No. He needs to do some work and by showing up in Orlando he’s well on his way to striking evangelical gold.

If Brody is right, then why does the Johnson Amendment matter? If Trump can get those pastors on his side, they will go pull spiritual rank on the captive sheep and the flock will get in line. There’s evangelical gold in them there churches and Trump needs to mine it like a boss.
I hope Brody is wrong. First, I hope most pastors will continue to resist a church endorsement of a candidate, and second, I hope the sheep break free from their captivity and become independent in their thinking and voting.

An Answer to Wayne Grudem about Donald Trump and What is Best for the Nation

Last week, theology professor Wayne Grudem created quite a stir with an essay declaring his belief that “voting for Trump is a morally good choice.” In this rebuttal, I argue in opposition to his position.
It is important to note at the beginning that Grudem has opined on moral issues surrounding presidential behavior in the past. In 1998 along with over 150 Christian scholars, Grudem signed the “Declaration concerning religion, ethics, and the crisis in the Clinton presidency.” In that document, the signers stopped short of support for impeachment but expressed doubt about Clinton’s expressions of remorse. As a rebuke to Clinton, the signers took a strong position in favor of moral behavior on the part of elected officials. In 1998, Grudem agreed with the following statement:

We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. (emphasis mine)

Acknowledging that Trump is flawed, Grudem has now carved out a more pragmatic ethic to justify his endorsement:

I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.

In 1998, Grudem was not as pragmatic with Bill Clinton. Now he says about Trump:

But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.

So now according to Grudem, Christians should vote in a way that seeks the welfare of the nation concluding:

Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?

In my view, Grudem was closer to correct in 1998. The moral qualities of “truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power” are critical to the survival of our system of government. It is not hard to make a case that Donald Trump has disqualified himself on each one of those principles.  In fact, Grudem seems to agree when he writes:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I don’t think Grudem goes far enough. Trump has not been truthful (e.g., he said he knew Putin, then he said he didn’t), there is evidence he has not treated his subcontractors with integrity, he surely has not treated others with dignity (e.g., constant name-calling and ridicule of people’s flaws) and he has shown a willingness to overreach his power (e.g., suppressing the press, saying he would order the military to commit war crimes). We haven’t even scratched the surface of his nod to white supremacists (e.g., granting press credentials to white supremacists). However, in my response here, I won’t fully chronicle the ways Trump has disqualified himself according to the moral qualities which Grudem affirmed in 1998. I think when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, he would stipulate that.
Grudem in 2016 is using a different standard to come to an ethical decision. Thus, I want to address what Grudem says is his overriding question: “Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?”
On that question, I can see no justification for a vote for Trump given what Trump has said he wants to do as president.
Grudem’s essay purports to provide specifics about Trump’s positions on various topics. In general, I think he has presented the most optimistic slant on those policy statements. He also provides no citations or evidence. While I haven’t provided an exhaustive analysis either, my purpose is to demonstrate that credible evidence exists that Trump is not the best choice for the nation and that compromising moral qualities is not required given the risk involved in a Trump administration.
Costs of Immigration Promises
In his essay, Grudem talks about the tax and economic policies of Trump and Clinton. However, it appears he has not studied them or consulted with experts about the effects of those policies. Let’s start with Trump’s promise to deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants. In addition to the human rights catastrophes (raids, family separation and instability, etc.) which would occur, the economic impact would be a disaster.
According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, that promise would hit the economy hard, costing at least $400 billion. In addition, the loss of workers would cause a $1 trillion drain on the gross domestic product. This does not include the cost of building a wall along the Mexican border which has been estimated at another $25 billion. Not surprisingly, Trump disagrees with these estimates, but has provided no numbers of his own.
Can we afford this? Is this best for the nation?
Taxes
As with other policy matters, Grudem’s discussion of Trump’s tax plan seems to be little more than his opinion. Trump has promised a tax cut but he has also promised to leave social security alone. In general, he promises to cut taxes while increasing government services (e.g., veteran’s benefits).  His method of paying for his increases in government spending (e.g., increases services, deportation force, building a wall, etc.) is to cut waste, fraud and abuse. Certainly, Grudem knows that every presidential candidate promises to do that. Furthermore, there isn’t enough waste to cut to get the budget balanced with Trump’s tax cuts while increasing government spending. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump’s tax plan will reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over a decade and increase the national debt by 80% of the gross domestic product.
Is this best for the nation?
Trade, Jobs and the Poor 
Grudem believes in a straight line between lower taxes and more jobs. However, one must also consider the impact of Trump’s threatened trade wars. According to a National Foundation for American Policy study of Trump’s proposed tariffs, American families would have to pay between $11,000 and $30,000 more for imported goods over five years depending on how widely the tariffs would be applied.
Higher costs hurt the poor. Of course, since he’s rich, Trump doesn’t care about costs. According to Market Watch, Trump brushed off concerns about higher costs:

“Who the hell cares if there’s a trade war?” Trump scoffed at a New Jersey event this month. I suppose when you’re super wealthy like he is, it doesn’t matter if the price of a TV or pair of sneakers or even a car goes up 35% to 45%. But when you’re just about anyone else, it matters. A lot.

According to Market Watch, the jobs of one in six people are connected to trade and other jobs, particularly those on the lower end of the spectrum would be at risk since everybody’s costs would go up.
The conservative National Chamber of Commerce agrees that Trump’s policies would lead to recession. They cite a non-partisan Moody’s analysis which shows Trump’s proposals leading to dire economic consequences. According to Moody’s analysis, unemployment would rise to 7 percent with 3.5 million jobs lost. They predict a lengthy recession.
Is this best for the nation?
Health Care
Trump promises to replace Obamacare with something else. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that Trump’s healthcare proposals would cost between $330-500 billion, and lead to 21 million more uninsured. These estimates are based on his current proposals which contradict other promises and preferences he has expressed about healthcare. Trump has expressed support for a single payer plan where the government control Grudem fears would be front and center.
Is this best for the nation?
National Debt
According to the CRFB, Trump’s campaign proposals in total are much more costly that Clinton’s. Over a decade, Trump’s plans would add $11.5 trillion to the national debt, whereas Clinton’s would add only $250 billion.
Is adding $11.5 trillion to the national debt best for the nation?
Foreign policy
Grudem seems to like Trump’s tough talk. He writes:

Trump will not let China and Russia and Iran push us around anymore, as Obama has done, with Hillary Clinton’s support when she was secretary of state. If Trump is anything, he is tough as nails, and he won’t be bullied.

Does Grudem not read the news? Trump melts when Vladimir Putin expresses the faintest positive sentiment. Trump said Putin called him a “genius,” however that’s not true. He said on at least two occasions that he had a good relationship with Putin only to say later that he didn’t know Putin and had never met him.
Worse is Trump’s vacillation on NATO and what he would do if Russia invaded a NATO ally. He said we might not intervene. Trump said he would look at recognizing Russia’s occupation of Crimea. There are possible conflicts of interest when it comes to Russia which have not been fully explored by the press.
For these and numerous other reasons, over 120 Republican foreign policy experts and advisors signed a letter opposing Trump’s candidacy. Former national security adviser to Presidents Ford and Bush Brent Scowcroft and former George W. Bush deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage have come out in favor of Clinton. For me on foreign policy, these experts carry more influence than theology professor Grudem.
I don’t believe Trump is best for the nation when it comes our relations with other nations.
Supreme Court Justices and Religious Liberty
Grudem paints the worst imaginable scenario in his discussion of Supreme Court justices and uses some less than honest rhetoric to do it. He says under Clinton “the nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.”
There is a lot wrong with these statements. Currently, federal judges are unelected. Nothing would change there. That is our constitutional system. If judicial power is abused, there are checks and balances which are available. That would be true under Trump or Clinton.
If Clinton’s judicial appointments are viewed as too liberal, the Senate can stall the process, as they are doing now. The current situation with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland demonstrates how Congress can exert influence. Surely, Grudem recalls the negative vote on Reagan appointee Robert Bork. Congress has held up numerous federal appointments over the years and they will not lose any abilities under Clinton.
Although Supreme Court appointments is a popular fall back position for evangelical Trump supporters, not all conservative legal scholars agree. For instance, the libertarian publication Reason polled 10 conservative scholars and found very little support for Trump. Readers should consider what all of them said but here is a modest sample:

Roger Pilon
Director of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute
Assuming Trump were to follow through on his list of possible Supreme Court nominees, that would be a reason to support him, but there are countervailing reasons to oppose him that are, I believe, far more important. The Court will correct itself in time, I hope, but it is the character of the Republican Party and, more broadly and crucially, of our very nation that is at stake in this election. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, to be sure, but the election of Donald Trump would so defile the party of Lincoln and America itself that it must be resisted. He is an aberration that we must get past, and quickly.

The other conservative legal scholars took similar positions, some more vehemently, some more timidly. However, a clear consensus was that the clear potential for damage to the Republican party and the nation outweighs the potential benefit of Supreme Court appointments.
On religious liberty, not all of Grudem’s scenarios are accurate and so it is difficult to respond to this concern. For instance, Grudem claims

some churches in Iowa have now been told that they have to make their bathrooms open to people on the basis of their “gender identity” if the churches are going to be open to the public at all.

This is simply not true. No church in Iowa has been told this as a condition of being “open to the public.” It is true that the Iowa Commission on Civil Rights issued poorly worded guidance eight years ago which caused confusion but no church has ever been forced to comply with Iowa non-discrimination law in ministry activities.
There is always a need to be vigilant when it comes to constitutional rights. Whether Trump or Clinton is elected, there will be places in the country where religious and other rights conflict. These issues must be handled on a case by case basis in light of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. However, concern about religious liberty is not the only issue of importance. Consequently, it doesn’t seem best for the nation to focus exclusively on getting more originalists on the Supreme Court.
Who is Best for the Nation?
For some Christian voters, deciding who gets their vote might come down to a decision that the potential for higher national debt, job killing trade wars, a chaotic and potentially dangerous foreign policy, draconian deportation practices, more racial division, and more people without health insurance are worth the possibility of additional conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. However, others will not. If we are selecting a candidate based on what is best for the nation, Trump is not as clear cut a choice as Grudem makes it seem. In fact, his essay is an insult to the intelligence of those who believe both candidates have disqualified themselves.
If a vote for Trump is a moral choice, then I can’t see how a vote for Clinton is not one also. It probably comes down to which vision of the future each individual believes to be accurate. As I look at the evidence, I think Grudem sugar coated Trump and cast Clinton in the worst possible light. In any case, given how inadequate his analysis of Trump’s positions and character is, I think it is an abuse of his position as an evangelical leader to imply that there is a choice that good Christians should choose. If his standard no longer elevates moral qualities, then he needs to do a better job researching Trump’s proposals and what they portend.
For me, I will either vote for a person to be named later (e.g., betterforamerica.com), write someone in, or not vote for president. For me, this is the moral choice.

The Rhetorical Maneuvers of Wayne Grudem: A Guest Post from Matthew Boedy

On Thursday, theologian Wayne Grudem came out for Donald Trump with a long column justifying a vote for Trump as an acceptable moral choice. In response, Professor of Rhetoric and Composition at the University of North Georgia, Matthew Boedy sent the following thoughts which I am glad to present as a guest post. Dr. Boedy is on Twitter @matthewboedy
The Rhetorical Maneuvers of Wayne Grudem
by Matthew Boedy
Wayne Grudem has put his name on a growing list of evangelical leaders who were first against Trump and are now for him. Grudem’s change is interesting because Grudem has written extensively and rather recently about how he thinks Christians should interact with government and its political process. In that frame, as one who has argued for certain “winsome” and “loving” behaviors and attitudes from Christians in the political sphere, Grudem’s endorsement of one of the most unliked and ill-mannered candidates in political history seems at least unethical and at most immoral. Does Trump meet the standards Grudem lays out? To me, the quick answer is no. But my main question for this analysis is: Does Grudem follow his own advice?
Grudem’s 2010 book Politics According to the Bible argues Christians should seek to have “significant influence” on government. Such influence “does not mean angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgmental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence, but rather winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence that is suitable to each circumstance and that always protects the other person’s right to disagree, but that is also uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word” (p. 55).
The negative traits above are of course how Grudem described Trump in the beginning on his endorsement in his TownHall column: “He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements… He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages.”
In a common rhetorical maneuver, Grudem tries to defuse the “bomb” of Trump’s highly negative traits before the “other side” tries to use it. Grudem admits them out front. So while it is clear from Grudem’s own words that Trump wouldn’t fit the categories of leader in his church, it is not clear why Grudem thinks such a “flawed” man should lead a country.
Grudem dismisses a “character fight” altogether and instead attempts to make objective policy standards for supporting Trump. To rebut or argue them all would take a lot of space and also would be a waste of time. It is more interesting for me as a rhetoric professor to note that Grudem’s essay fails to live up to his own positive qualities for Christian influence on government. I am hopeful by making this case you will find better advice about how you might participate in our democracy.
Let’s begin with the adjectives from Grudem’s definition: “winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence…”
As a professor of rhetoric I feel I can write convincingly that Grudem does not pursue persuasion as much as he pursues dictating in his essay. And if my claim is accurate, he fails to be the kind of Christian he calls us to be. That should deter anyone from giving his opinion any weight on the matter.
First, he claims a vote for Trump is imperative because of the federal judiciary consequences, specifically the Supreme Court. He notes “judicial tyranny” has brought on America abortion and same-sex marriage. That same tyranny would continue under Clinton, he argues: “The nation would no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges who would dictate from the bench about whatever they were pleased to decree. And there would be nothing in our system of government that anyone could do to stop them.”
Grudem here trots out a common GOP talking point that can be neatly summarized in a phrase used repeatedly after same-sex marriage was legalized: “five unelected judges.” He adds another GOP favorite “activist.” Now, since Grudem played his expertise card – 29 years of teaching Christian ethics – I am obliged to point out he is not even close to being an expert in the centuries-long disagreement over the role of judges. What is new in that debate – and I as an expert on debate can say this – is the phrase “unelected.” Supreme Court judges have, of course, always been unelected. A few local and state judges are not. All federal judges are. In any case, to suggest the authority of SCOTUS to rule is somehow misused because of the fact of appointment (and consent by Senate in case of SCOTUS judges) is the worst form of populism. It is actually a threat to democracy.
The founders of this country put in place “separation of powers” to balance the power of each branch. Those have not disappeared. Grudem’s claim that “nothing in our system of government” can stop “activist” judges is not only inaccurate, it is an abuse of his position because he knows better.
It is inaccurate because Grudem goes on to state the very mechanism in our government that could stop them – the election of the president who appoints judges. And of course don’t forget the Senate.
And this is where Grudem fails to live up to his own standards. It’s “judicial tyranny” when the decisions go against what he believes or thinks the Bible teaches. But it is perfectly normal if the judges he likes – and could be appointed by Trump – overturn such decisions. Who is unelected now, Wayne?
Grudem goes one step further in his Trump endorsement to suggest SCOTUS isn’t a democratic institution: “We lost – not at the ballot box, but because we had a liberal Supreme Court that nullified the democratic process regarding the definition of marriage.”
He blatantly strips the court of any authority all the while saying his judges would rule in the opposite way but by the same manner. Let me be snide by suggesting that if a member of Grudem’s church made this argument to their elders, they would be quickly disciplined and/or excommunicated.
In regard to secular government, clearly Grudem – like all who makes this unsound argument – does not believe in the rule of law. He doesn’t want to be ruled by the law. He wants to be ruled by something else. Strange from a guy who extols democracy so much.
And that brings me to what standards he does use. He names them in his definition of “significant influence:” “… that is suitable to each circumstance and that always protects the other person’s right to disagree, but that is also uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word” (p. 55).
He surely isn’t protecting anyone’s right to disagree by suggesting the “disagreements” SCOTUS put into law (abortion and same-sex marriage) go against the American system of government. Translation: you can’t be patriotic if you think SCOTUS was right.
He isn’t protecting disagreement in a future Trump administration when he suggests that liberal “power” could further criminalize political dissent. This from a supporter of a candidate who has on numerous occasions banned media from covering his campaigns, called for further crackdowns on media freedom, and routinely belittles reporters and his critics in both parties. If liberal activists want to criminalize dissent, Trump is not the man who can fix that. He will just be a one-man version of it.
And so that leads me to Grudem’s attempt to be “uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word.” He has left out a few of those words from his unethical call for Trump votes. Proverbs and its call about fools come to mind. We can debate terms like justice all day. But surely someone of Grudem’s training and experience can recognize a fool in his midst.
But most interesting to me as a rhetorical scholar is the phrase “suitable to each circumstance.” Not only is it a phrase from Grudem’s definition of masculinity and femininity and the ways in which he wants men and women to apply his principles of gender, it is also a traditional part of a rhetorical education. Both uses suggest a form of judgment is needed. Rhetorical education aims to teach judgment – when to know to use which rhetorical tactic, for example. It is a virtue-backed judgment, not a sinister “say what the polls tell me to” decision making process. It is a formation of a quality that not only affects the words we say, but how and when and to whom we say them. This is why Augustine taught it.
Another word for such a judgment is character. Character isn’t born; it is made. Yet Grudem dismisses those who vote “only” on character. He writes such is “a fallacy in ethical reasoning” called “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered.”
He is correct on one thing – that is a good definition of reductionism. But it is not a good summary of the historical use of character by Christian leaders and the manner in which Christian voters see character. To many in the church, character is not “an” element – it is the umbrella concern. It is not a “single issue” – it is the issue. And this comes from the teaching they hear every Sunday. It is why so many have succeeded in bringing ‘character education’ to public schools. It is why so many are NeverTrump.
And it is exactly why Grudem himself highlights character so well in his definition of “significant influence.” He wants Christians to use their judgment, not merely be robots for pastors and leaders like himself. Or parties for that matter. He wants them to practice their politics in “winsome” and “loving” ways – character traits. This is why Grudem spent so many pages in his famous Systematic Theology on the attributes or character of God. This is why he discourages “mob mentalities” and wants us to use “persuasive influence.” This is why he calls for patience, kindness, and other fruits of the spirit (character traits) in citizens who are Christians.
He just doesn’t hold Trump or himself to the same standard. What a shame from a man who teaches Christian ethics. And this is why his reasoning on his vote for Trump is not to be heeded. What a shame from a man many look to for guidance.
Finally let me address Grudem’s theory on voting. He argues that voting “for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump” will help “Clinton because she will need one less vote to win.” He then addresses those who won’t vote at all: “But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing.” He cites Obadiah 1:11.
His use of this verse is a shameful and willful misreading and misapplication from the context. But outside the interpretative issues, it grounds a profoundly misguided voting theory. A write-in vote isn’t helping Clinton; it helps the write-in. This line of thinking assumes one does not want Hillary to win. Fine. It should also assume one does not want Trump to win. Both desires can be found ethically in a Christian or any voter. Someone voting for Gary Johnson (or anyone else) should honestly believe he is the best person and most likely to help the country.
As for the non-voter, like me, I am not escaping any moral responsibility. I talk to others, I write, I even teach like Grudem. I haven’t decided to ‘do nothing.’ I am doing something – listening like a good citizen to the voices of our better angels. Something Grudem refuses to do. How sad from a person who claims Jesus.
 

Did Hillary Clinton Plagiarize Alexis de Tocqueville?

Tonight in her speech, Hillary Clinton said:

But here’s the sad truth: There is no other Donald Trump…This is it. And in the end, it comes down to what Donald Trump doesn’t get: that America is great – because America is good.

Did she plagiarize de Tocqueville? No, because de Tocqueville didn’t say that. According John Pitney in the Weekly Standard:

These lines are uplifting and poetic. They are also spurious. Nowhere do they appear in Democracy in America, or anywhere else in Tocqueville.

Read Pitney’s explanation at the Weekly Standard. Quick, Twitter’s going crazy over it.
Now having established that, can we talk about Bonhoeffer author Eric Metaxas tweeting a spurious Bonhoeffer quote to promote Christians voting for Donald Trump?