Trump, Clinton, and Civic Ethics Discussion

There’s a Christian way to handle the GOP standard-bearer and his inveterate bad behavior.

CHR Comment: Tom Krattenmaker of Yale Divinity school explains his understanding of loving one’s political enemies. Here is another example where the current election raises ethical issues for those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Source: Jesus teaches us to love even Donald Trump: Column


Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice – Wayne Grudem and His Critics

Some of my Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump because, when faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils, the morally right thing is to choose neither one. They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate.

CHR Comment: Grudem is a well known Evangelical theologian. His opinion piece on is criticized by Jonathan Merritt in Religion News Service and by Michael Stark in the Huffington Post. I am posting links to all three opinion pieces below so readers can explore them. I will add a few observations:

Merritt attacks Grudem for publishing a book on politics, which he does not like/disagrees with. His argument is that Grudem is not an expert on the topics in his book on politics so he should not dare to publish on them. I suppose that since so many of us are not experts on political or policy issues, by Merritt’s reasoning, we are excluded from expressing opinions about the issues. He seems to advocate a world run by experts when we live in a republic that requires the involvement (voting) of persons who are not experts. Merritt’s reasoning is odd and really just a personal attack on Grudem.

Stark’s article seems better written but, not surprisingly, differs with Grudem in its arguments and conclusions. One line in Stark is very telling and potentially confusing to readers. He writes:

“If it is a duty to vote, as Grudem says, then we ought to vote for the candidate that is least objectionable and will promote freedom to the greatest amount of people.”

Stark is not describing Grudem’s view but his own view when he refers to promoting freedom to the greatest amount of people. Stark is presenting an argument for consequentialist ethics, with greatest freedom as the highest value in politics. In connection with this, he emphasizes the love of Jesus as a means of Christianizing the argument.

In contrast, Grudem is arguing something quite different. He asks:

“Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?”

As a more traditional Christian ethicist, Grudem is thinking in terms of divine-command ethics rather than consequentialist ethics. He is not concerned about calculating what most people regard as the most valuable but what God has said is most important or “best” as he puts it. So Grudem and Stark are working with very different systems of ethics. They are interpreting and applying the Bible in very different ways.

Source: Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice – Wayne Grudem

The Pan-Orthodox Council Must and Will Proceed

A majority of the Orthodox Churches desire to “walk together” towards unity, while a minority desire ethnic isolation. The Pan-Orthodox Council must not and will not be postponed due to this minority. Nor will the nonparticipation of a minority invalidate the proceedings of the Council.

CHR Comment: The dividing issue that has caused some Orthodox Churches to withdraw from the council, which was fifty years in development, is the issue of consensus—how voting will take place. The article repeatedly speaks of a vast majority of Orthodox Churches participating in the council. However, this seems misleading since the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest body representing the most people. Their withdrawal is significant.

Source: The Pan-Orthodox Council Must and Will Proceed | Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis and Paul L. Gavrilyuk | First Things