An open letter to Democrats and other progressives on the 2016 election

Lately it seems that Democrats have been blaming everyone but George W. Bush for losing the election—Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein, James Comey, Huma Abedin, purveyors of fake news, Russian hackers, the media, and even the Electoral College system. As a conservative Evangelical Christian I’d like to suggest one more reason Hillary lost this election, and make a proposal about how Democrats might do better next time.

I think I speak for most conservative Evangelicals when I say that we were appalled when we saw a few Evangelical leaders unconditionally promoting Donald Trump. Evangelicals who had so strongly insisted that character matters when it came to Bill Clinton were now unapologetically promoting a man whose morality was even worse than Clinton’s! Not only that, but Trump’s whole personality was deeply troubling. Here was a man who made very personal and often cruel attacks on everyone who crossed his path, and would seemingly sue just about anyone who got in his way! These are very disturbing traits for a man who seemed to think he could run America like a CEO runs a company! Many of us were (still are) concerned that he is a megalomaniac who has the potential trampling people’s rights with a pen and a phone like someone else who comes to mind.

So the fact of the matter is that many of us Evangelicals almost threw up in our mouth when we voted for Donald Trump! Why would conservative evangelicals vote for someone who was so thoroughly repugnant to our values?

There are numerous reasons, of course (many residing in Hillary Clinton herself), but among the most significant was the fact that we believed that the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, were waging war on our freedom. Hear me out—There are millions of us “deplorables” and unless you at least try to understand our position you have little hope of ever getting our vote!

We saw our freedom threatened in two areas in particular. First, was the issue of abortion. Many Evangelicals view abortion as nothing less than murder. This is not just political rhetoric. This is honestly what we believe (the fact that human life begins at conception is supported by science). So it’s bad enough that our country legally permits that which from our perspective is practically a holocaust, but when Democrats began trying to legally force Christian-owned organizations to pay for abortion coverage, it crossed a line. It is one thing for a government to engage in immoral practices we oppose—Evangelicals are not personally accountable for that. But many Christians believed that being forced to pay for insurance packages enabling their workers to obtain abortions would make them personally accountable to God for a practice they honestly believe to be murder. Forcing people of faith to support issues which they believe to be in violation of God’s law is tyranny. This country was founded by people who fled such tyranny!

Second, was the issue of gay rights. What began as a movement that urged tolerance has become one of the most intolerant movements in country! Christian bakers, florists, psychologists, and others are being run out of business (and have even had their lives threatened) by gay rights advocates. Contrary to the way Evangelicals are often portrayed, we do not hate gay people! In fact, these Christian business owners were happy to serve gay customers—they just could not support the institution of gay marriage.

For example, Christian bakers were happy to bake cakes or cookies for gay customers, but they honestly believed (rightly or wrongly) that baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding constituted providing support for an institution that violated God’s laws.

There were, of course, plenty of other bakers who would have loved to have the gay customers’ business but that wasn’t good enough. Gay rights advocates chose to intimidate, threaten and use government regulations in an attempt to force these Christians out of business. Even some gay people were scandalized by the intolerance exhibited toward these Christians. Would Democrats want the government to force a gay baker to provide baked goods for an anti-gay rally? Of course not! In most other cases, Democrats recognize that forced speech is not free speech.

It is very important to understand, however, that this is not just about government forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do. For example, when I lived in Arizona, the state government required us to get the emissions checked on our cars every year. I hated that hassle, but it didn’t violate my convictions so I complied. It is an entirely different matter when governments try to force people of faith to do things they sincerely believe to violate God’s laws. Christians who are serious about their faith simply can’t comply. “We must obey God rather than man,” St. Peter is quoted as saying.  Forcing people to violate deeply held religious convictions is not freedom—it is tyranny.

So when the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton aggressively supported both of these attacks on Christians—and would have certainly appointed justices to the Supreme Court who would ensure compliance—what choice did we have? We could have sat this election out, but that would have ensured a Clinton victory and the continued erosion of our liberty. In our view it was better to take our chances with Trump who might possibly threaten our freedom in the future, than to vote for Hillary who was already threatening our freedom today.

So how could Hillary have won the election? Imagine if Hillary had said:

·        "I am absolutely committed to fight for abortion rights—but in America we also uphold religious liberty. We will not force people of faith to violate their religious convictions. We will not go after doctors or nurses who, because of sincere religious conviction, cannot perform or assist in abortions and we will not force Christian-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby or Christian book publishers to pay for abortion coverage. But apart from such rare religious exemptions, we will fight vigorously to uphold abortion rights."

·         Second, "I will relentlessly fight for gay rights including gay marriage—but in America we uphold freedom of speech. While we will insist that all businesses must serve all customers regardless of race or gender, we will not force people of faith to support the institution of gay marriage. And we will not force Christian churches, charities, missions, schools or colleges to hire or enroll anyone who refuses to comply with their religious behavior codes. But apart from these relatively few religious exceptions, I will be a staunch defender of gay rights and gay marriage."

If the Democrats in general and Hillary in particular had campaigned on this I am absolutely convinced that Hillary would have won the election hands down. That is because many, many Evangelicals were on the fence in this election due to their strong distaste for Donald Trump. It wouldn’t have taken much to swing their vote to Hillary. In fact, there are many Evangelicals who would like to vote Democrat because they (naively, in my view) see Democrats as caring more for the poor. Personally, I was about as strongly opposed to Hillary as one could legally get, and yet, my distaste for Trump was so strong that if Hillary had only been tolerant in these two areas, even I may have voted for her!

Intolerance was one of the factors that cost Democrats this election. If Democrats would practice the tolerance they preach, they just might win next time.

How dare you question someone else's faith!

Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump consider themselves to be Christians. Those who have had the audacity to call their claims into question have often stirred a firestorm of criticism. Faith is often seen as a very private thing which no one has the right to challenge or question. I would suggest that the difference of opinion stems in part from two different ways of understanding faith and Christianity. For lack of better terms, I will call these two viewpoints “Traditional Christianity” and “Progressive Christianity.”

Traditional Christianity

Traditional Christianity crosses denominational boundaries and has always taught that all human beings have sinned against God. Our sinfulness manifests itself in specific attitudes, thoughts and actions, but is more deeply rooted in ultimate allegiances to power, glory, honor, wealth, religion, family, self, entertainment—anything but absolute allegiance to the God of the Bible! This sinfulness has separated us from a holy God and results in his wrath against us. No amount of good works on our part can make up for our rebellion. By ourselves, our situation would be hopeless.

The solution, however, was provided by God Himself who became human in the person of Jesus Christ, lived among us as a perfect example, and died a torturous death as an atoning sacrifice in our place. God applies the benefit of this sacrifice—a right standing before Him—to all who repent of their sin and turn in faith to Jesus as their lord and king.

Repentance is often misunderstood. To repent is not just being sorry we’ve sinned. To repent means to have a change of mind or a change of heart. A repentant heart is one that no longer looks at sin as merely a mistake. It no longer relativizes sin as if the fact that I’m not as bad as others somehow excuses me. It no longer excuses sin as the fault of my environment, or circumstances or genetics, or parents. Repentance emotionally and intellectually comes to grips with the fact that I have rebelled against a holy God and am without excuse. This heart attitude, coupled with a sincere desire to change, is repentance.

Faith is also widely misunderstood. Biblical saving faith is not just believing certain facts about Jesus, like his deity or resurrection—as important as those facts are. Even demons have that kind of “faith”! Saving faith is not just trusting that God is going to take you to heaven. Jesus said that many on judgment day will say to him, “Lord, Lord…”, but he will say to them, “Depart, you workers of iniquity.” Biblical saving faith is a heart attitude of loving devotion/ commitment/ dedication/ allegiance, to Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord and King; trusting him alone to make us right with God. This kind of repentance/faith cannot help but result in a change that produces increasing obedience to Jesus, our King, resulting in love, kindness and compassion (theologians call this “sanctification”). Biblically speaking, repentance and faith are like two sides of the same coin. Repentance turns from sin. Faith turns toward Jesus.

Although some traditionalists will quibble with my wording, I would argue that this gospel has basically been the core teaching of Christianity for 2,000 years, precisely because it is so thoroughly and solidly rooted in the New Testament. Admittedly, this teaching has been widely distorted at times by both Catholics and Protestants. For example, many in the Roman Catholic Church have, throughout history, seemingly substituted good works, or adherence to rituals, or commitment to “the Church” for genuine devotion to Christ. Among Protestants, John Calvin, once denounced those who have no devotion toward God and yet falsely think they are saved just because they intellectually believe certain doctrines. The view Calvin denounced is still wide-spread in contemporary Christianity. But these are distortions of Traditional (biblical) Christianity.

Progressive Christianity

A second kind of “Christianity” is what I will call, “Progressive Christianity.” This also crosses denominational boundaries but tends to be found more in old, mainline denominations. In his book, The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg calls this the “emerging paradigm.” This is misleading, however, since Borg’s “emerging paradigm” is pretty much the same as “liberal” or “modernist” Christianity and has been around for over two hundred years. Progressive Christianity tends to deny what Traditionalists have—for almost two thousand years—seen to be core doctrines of the Christian faith—e.g. the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and the bodily resurrection, etc. In Progressive Christianity, the core ideas of sin, repentance and final judgment tend to be ignored, downplayed, denied or even denounced. Progressive Christianity is primarily, if not exclusively, concerned with being kind, compassionate, loving, tolerant and non-judgmental towards everyone (the book by Marcus Borg cited above gives a detailed explanation and defense of this view). In this view, faith is not so much loving devotion to a person but a feeling or preference for a particular religious worldview. How dare anyone call in to question your personal preference!

Evangelicalism once stood firmly in the line of Traditional Christianity, though in recent times, many evangelicals seem more like practicing progressives. What I mean is that while these progressive evangelicals technically still hold to core tenets of the faith, they tend to shy away from teaching doctrine, and they ignore or downplay ideas like sin, repentance and final judgment. Preaching on sin and repentance may seem too judgmental, intolerant and politically incorrect to Progressive congregations. Like the liberal version of Progressive Christianity, the evangelical version seems to focus largely on tolerance, love, and compassion.

Evaluation

Of course, love and compassion are essential features of any version of Christianity, but the Progressive version is problematic. First, traditional Christianity places a great deal of emphasis on biblical standards of honesty, ethics, biblical morality etc. In the book cited above, Marcus Borg characterizes this as an emphasis on purity rather than on compassion. The problem is that when compassion and tolerance are separated from biblical standards or “purity,” they quickly descend into inconsistent and sometimes even hypocritical relativism.

Secular progressives, for example, loudly preach tolerance, and yet they are often among the most intolerant people on the planet—showing tolerance only toward the views they support! Being compassionate toward someone (e.g., a rapist) may unintentionally involve being uncompassionate toward someone else (e.g. his victim). Non-discrimination toward one group may necessarily involve discrimination toward another. Love, compassion and tolerance must be rooted in absolutes—what Borg decries as “purity” standards, which Traditionalists find in the Bible—or else the result is often inconsistent relativism.

Second, unless love and compassion flow out of a heart of repentance and loving devotion (faith) toward Jesus Christ, our acts of love and compassion are really nothing more than the kind of works-righteousness or works-salvation denounced so strongly by the Apostle Paul. Paul strongly and repeatedly insisted that no one is saved by the good works they do, but only by God’s grace through faith in Christ. Besides, if our ultimate allegiance (faith) is not to Jesus as King, then any good works we do are but “filthy rags” to God since they would be coming from a heart which is ultimately in rebellion against God.

Finally, the idea of faith as a feeling or personal preference is a modern viewpoint congenial to modern pluralist sensibilities in which would be loath to place any one “faith” or religion over another (except by way of personal preference). It is certainly not, however, the viewpoint which, according to the New Testament, was taught by Jesus and apostles. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus taught, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” 

It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion, therefore, that the apostles and very earliest followers of Jesus would have considered many modern “Progressive Christians”—whether of the liberal version or the “evangelical” version—to be Christians in name only. And when I look at the "fruit" of the words and deeds of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, I find it hard to believe that the apostles would have considered either of them to be Christian.