Should Christians Vote for Trump?

Should Christians Vote for Trump?

By Eric Metaxas

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume?

Trump’s behavior is odious, but Clinton has a deplorable basketful of deal breakers.

This question should hardly require an essay, but let’s face it: We’re living in strange times. America is in trouble.

Over this past year many of Donald Trump’s comments have made me almost literally hopping mad. The hot-mic comments from 2005 are especially horrifying. Can there be any question we should denounce them with flailing arms and screeching volume? I must not hang out in the right locker rooms, because if anyone I know said such things I might assault him physically (and repent later). So yes, many see these comments as a deal breaker.

But we have a very knotty and larger problem. What if the other candidate also has deal breakers? Even a whole deplorable basketful? Suddenly things become horribly awkward. Would God want me simply not to vote? Is that a serious option?

-What if not pulling the lever for Mr. Trump effectively means electing someone who has actively enabled sexual predation in her husband before—and while—he was president?

-Won’t God hold me responsible for that? What if she defended a man who raped a 12-year-old and in recalling the case laughed about getting away with it? Will I be excused from letting this person become president?

-What if she used her position as secretary of state to funnel hundreds of millions into her own foundation, much of it from nations that treat women and gay people worse than dogs? Since these things are true, can I escape responsibility for them by simply not voting?

Many say they won’t vote because choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. But this is sophistry. Neither candidate is pure evil. They are human beings. We cannot escape the uncomfortable obligation to soberly choose between them.

if

Not voting—or voting for a third candidate who cannot win—is a rationalization designed more than anything to assuage our consciences. Yet people in America and abroad depend on voters to make this very difficult choice.

Children in the Middle East are forced to watch their fathers drowned in cages by ISIS. Kids in inner-city America are condemned to lives of poverty, hopelessness and increasing violence. Shall we sit on our hands and simply trust “the least of these” to God, as though that were our only option? Don’t we have an obligation to them?

Two heroes about whom I’ve written faced similar difficulties. William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade in the British Empire, often worked with other parliamentarians he knew to be vile and immoral in their personal lives.

Why did he? First, because as a sincere Christian he knew he must extend grace and forgiveness to others, since he desperately needed them himself. Second, because he knew the main issue was not his moral purity, nor the moral impurity of his colleagues, but rather the injustices and horrors suffered by the African slaves whose cause he championed. He knew that before God his first obligation was to them, and he must do what he could to help them.

The anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer also did things most Christians of his day were disgusted by. He most infamously joined a plot to kill the head of his government. He was horrified by it, but he did it nonetheless because he knew that to stay “morally pure” would allow the murder of millions to continue. Doing nothing or merely “praying” was not an option. He understood that God was merciful, and that even if his actions were wrong, God saw his heart and could forgive him. But he knew he must act.

Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer knew it was an audience of One to whom they would ultimately answer. And He asks, “What did you do to the least of these?”

 

It’s a fact that if Hillary Clinton is elected, the country’s chance to have a Supreme Court that values the Constitution—and the genuine liberty and self-government for which millions have died—is gone. Not for four years, or eight, but forever.

Many say Mr. Trump can’t be trusted to deliver on this score, but Mrs. Clinton certainly can be trusted in the opposite direction. For our kids and grandkids, are we not obliged to take our best shot at this? Shall we sit on our hands and refuse to choose?

If imperiously flouting the rules by having a private server endangered American lives and secrets and may lead to more deaths, if she cynically deleted thousands of emails, and if her foreign-policy judgment led to the rise of Islamic State, won’t refusing to vote make me responsible for those suffering as a result of these things?

vote

How do I squirm out of this horrific conundrum? It’s unavoidable: We who can vote must answer to God for these people, whom He loves. We are indeed our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

We would be responsible for passively electing someone who champions the abomination of partial-birth abortion, someone who is celebrated by an organization that sells baby parts. We already live in a country where judges force bakers, florists and photographers to violate their consciences and faith—and Mrs. Clinton has zealously ratified this. If we believe this ends with bakers and photographers, we are horribly mistaken. No matter your faith or lack of faith, this statist view of America will dramatically affect you and your children.

For many of us, this is very painful, pulling the lever for someone many think odious. But please consider this: A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

What Matters is what Bill Clinton has done and continues to do. Here’s why…

You should be way more horrified of the Clintons bringing back low-life sleaze, crime-family corruption, and Obama’s death spiral than you are of the 11 year old remarks of a man who may no longer even exist.  

 

Here now are my first public comments on this firestorm surrounding Trump’s lewd audio comments 11 years ago.  My earlier blog entitled What Matters was posted before any of us knew about the notorious audio.  I am not going to defend the lewd comments on that tape.  They are reprehensible…but so is the reaction by many Christians.

There is a sickening way that the puritanical and the prurient  have co mingled in this storm.  Many Christians scream “shame, shame,” but can’t get enough of the sleazy details.  They read all they can about the sexual immorality with a religious relish and then call down the wrath of God.

What I am going to talk about is WHAT MATTERS!   Are you truly outraged by sexual immorality?  Are you sincere in wanting to keep it out of the White House?  Then here is my emphatic message to you: What matters is what Bill Clinton has done and is doing to women and not what Donald Trump said 11 years ago.  Here are my points:

We need more audios:  It is too bad—for those who dabble in sordid audio recordings—that we do not have an audio of Kathleen Willey screaming and begging Bill Clinton to stop raping her.

How sad that we do not have an audio of Hillary Clinton verbally castigating and trying to destroy the victims of her husband’s sexual predatory behavior.  We do have this tweet that came out today: “The Hag has called us bimbos, sluts, trailer trash, whores, skanks. From one woman to her rapist’s victims. When will u resign from ur campaign?” – Kathleen Willey.

How sad that we do not have an audio of Hillary Clinton laughing at a 12-year-old girl who was raped. Oh wait, I forgot, we do have that one.

Bill is still being sexually immoral:  General Colin Powell said that Bill Clinton is still bedding down bimbos.  Only he didn’t use the term bedding down.  That’s right, Bill is still at it.

Odd, don’t you think?   Christians are outraged and will not vote for Trump because they don’t want sexual immorality in the White House…yet, they will guarantee it—by default—by letting Hillary win.

Donald has changed Bill has not: The way many Christians reacted to the audio of Donald Trump makes you think he said these things yesterday and not 11 years ago. According to Doctor James Dobson, Trump is a baby Christian still struggling to make sense of his new found faith.

This is exactly what happened to Chuck Colson—the notorious Watergate criminal—who became one of the 20th Centuries most powerful Christians.

Eric Metaxas, in his book Seven Men: And the Secret of Their Greatness describes the 2 years in Chuck Colson’s life where he tried to sort out what it meant to follow Christ.

You could be right that Trump is staging a conversion for votes…but what if you are wrong?  What if Trump—instead of being a famous billionaire running for president—was just a womanizer who repented at your church? What if a tape came out of remarks he made over a decade before his conversion?  Would you still say the things so many Christians said yesterday?

– “Once an adulterer always an adulterer!”

– “Out of the abundance of his heart, Trump is speaking.”

– “people who say these things, have done these things.”

As I said, you may be right…but what if you are wrong?  Then you are trashing a young believer and confirming all of the worst stereotypes that people have about Christians.

Hillary is not a wronged wife.  She is enabling Bill to keep up a front.  Nothing baffles me more than feminists who hold up Hillary as a role model for young women.  Excuse me but wasn’t the whole point of the women’s movement to stop this kind of woman?

Feminists say they want a fair shot at success.  They want to come by it honestly.  They don’t want the old roles of gold-digger and Jezebel.  They want to be respected for honest achievement.  They do not want to destroy other women on their way up.

Hillary embodies the climber—the grasper-the one who would hold on to a man solely for career goals and destroy women who get in her way.

Loss of innocent life does not bother her. She is not queasy about late term abortion.  She can sleep through a Benghazi.

She is telling young girls, by example, to stay with a sexual predator if it means getting what you want.

You should be way more horrified by the existential threat of the Clintons to bring low-life sleaze, crime-family corruption, and the continuation of Obama’s death spiral than you are of the 11 year old remarks of a man who may no longer even exist.

As a matter of fairness and for no other reason look at this video of Juanita Broaddrick recounting the attack by Bill Clinton.

 

RAPE ALLEGATIONS: MEDIA HUNTS BILL COSBY, CELEBRATES BILL CLINTON

RAPE ALLEGATIONS: MEDIA HUNTS BILL COSBY, CELEBRATES BILL CLINTON

Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.

Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.

The scandal is a classic case of Power vs. The Powerless. There is substance to the charges,including a lawsuit Cosby settled with the woman in 2006, and similar allegations from other women.  As loved and lovable and talented as Bill Cosby is, as much as I am personally fond of him for all the pleasure he has brought into my life, looking into this kind of story is what the media is supposed to be about.

Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.

I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby has been accused of rape and has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old  White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment and the loss of his license to practice law.

Juanita Broderick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broderick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broderick as a liar, a tool of the Right, or my personal favorite, old news.

Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.

Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still  too happy to play along.

Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the media was all-too eager to play along.

While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.

Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of front runner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.

If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.

Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats.  Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.

Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.

The media’s motives are racial, not noble.

If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.