Pandemic Rights

I started drafting this a couple of months ago and never got around to finishing it. It’s a bit outdated and a bit political, but I still wanted to share it.

Over the past few months, as society has debated the proper response to the coronavirus pandemic, I’ve heard two very different viewpoints expressed for churches. At the national level, I’ve heard arguments that churches are essential, that they should be permitted to stay open or to reopen, that it’s an infringement of our rights and an infringement of religious freedom to close them. At the local level, though, I’m hearing a much simpler and more direct tone, such as my local church’s announcement in March to not meet in person: “This decision was made out of a desire to love our neighbors and protect those who are vulnerable to this virus.” Later, they decided to continue meeting online “simply out of love. We believe that the best way to love our neighbors is to continue meeting online, to continue doing what we can to keep people safe… The final reason is our witness… We’re convinced that our collective belief, our collective stance as a church is to focus on our witness as a community, and we know that there are a lot of people who are anxious about this and are immunocompromised or who are worried about their family members, and we want to be honest and true and caring for that concern.”

Of course, this isn’t the first time that we’ve had such debates on our rights as Christians in America. Much of the contemporary debate traces back to the 1980s, with the creation of the Moral Majority and the rise of the religious right, supported by people like Jerry Falwell Sr., Pat Robertson, and Cal Thomas. Thomas’s views later shifted, though. He wrote a newspaper column that stuck with me ever since I read it in 1996:

[Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin] Scalia urged the 650 present [at a prayer breakfast] to ignore the scorn of the “worldly wise” and merely stand up for their beliefs. Such advice is in contrast to much of what we hear in some religious circles: There are demands for respect. There are calls for the “Christian equivalent” of the ACLU to force secularists to treat believers fairly. There is an attitude that says “how can they do this to us,” as if a servant is greater than his Master.

There is nothing in Scripture that commands those who seek to follow God to demand their rights. There is much about the benefits of obedience to what the Bible teaches. Rewards for enduring persecutions are promised, but, like an individual retirement account, they are delayed.

And there is a good deal of teaching about persecution. When experienced because of “righteousness’ sake,” persecution is to be welcomed as a sign (though not the only sign) that the person being persecuted is thinking, behaving and worshiping in a way that pleases God.

There are many Christians in other parts of the world who might gladly change places with American believers. In other nations they face torture, discrimination and murder. Here, their “suffering” is limited to occasional slights from reporters and cartoonists.

According to Christian Solidarity International, the National Islamic Front is torturing Christians in Sudan with whips and then inserting hot chili peppers into their wounds. Do American Christians think critical words and occasional discrimination hurt more than this? They should focus their outrage at the ones guilty of practicing real persecution…

When the Apostles stood before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and were ordered flogged for preaching the Gospel, they didn’t whine about being persecuted. They “rejoiced because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name.” That’s the right attitude. It is far preferable to complaining about the way one is treated. It is, I think, what Scalia was getting at. And he is a man practicing what he preaches.

Early in the pandemic, I read a few articles from a Christian perspective arguing that it was medically wise and spiritually acceptable to not meet in person. I’ll admit that I found these unconvincing; I’m a firm believer in the importance of the local church. Even though I work with technology for a living, I don’t think that Zoom calls and live-streamed church services can fully replace meeting in person; after all, God gave us bodies for a reason. But I can’t argue with my local church’s decision to prioritize loving their community, or with Cal Thomas’s injunction to not focus on our rights. Even though I think that meeting in person is important, or even if I think that the risks of COVID-19 are being exaggerated, the fact is that many of the broader public are or were convinced that it was deadly serious, and so temporarily sacrificing in-person gatherings became a way to show love to those with those fears and concerns. I’d much rather that we as the church be known as the folks who, out of love for and a desire to help others, paused something we consider vitally important, rather than being known as the folks who insisted on our right to gather in spite of others’ objections.

Wearing masks is similar. I know there are strong disagreements over how effective they are. Personally, I’m convinced they’re worth wearing. But, even if you don’t think they’re helpful, many others do; wearing a mask becomes a way to show love to them. This was brought home for me when I was talking during the height of the pandemic shutdowns with a coworker who (to the best of my knowledge) was not a believer; while I sat cocooned in my home office doing my well-paid fully remote software development job, her partner went to a grocery story where she constantly worried about what he might bring home because of constant contact with shoppers and other employees who often weren’t careful. How could I convince her of Christians’ love if I insisted that my rights were more important than her fears?

I don’t want to overstate my case here. The Bible tells us to be good citizens (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pe 2:13-17), and in a democracy, that means being part of the democratic process and participating (as far as we can without compromising our mission) in society’s discussions on how to balance the rights of individuals and groups. We’re blessed to live in a country that promises religious freedom; that’s a gift, and it’s not wrong to try to hold on to it. And, for what it’s worth, I think that modern American culture is more hostile to traditional Christian beliefs than it was when Thomas wrote in 1996 - but masks and lockdowns still fall far short of the torture that Thomas’s Sudanese Christians face, and they’re no worse than what many people in the world are going through. Instead of fighting even harder for our rights, I’d rather we work even harder to show love and spread the Gospel. After all, laying aside one’s rights out of love for others is what Jesus himself did,

who, though he existed in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be grasped,
but emptied himself
by taking on the form of a slave,
by looking like other men,
and by sharing in human nature.
He humbled himself
by becoming obedient to the point of death
—even death on a cross!
As a result God highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow
—in heaven and on earth and under the earth—
and every tongue confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:6-11)

The NET Bible

I’ve been using the New English Translation, or NET Bible, as my version of choice on my YouVersion Bible app for a few years now. There are a few reasons I really like it:

First, it was one of the first translations to be made available totally free of charge. I know that workers deserve to be paid (1 Tim 5:17-18), and so I don’t at all begrudge the efforts of, say, Zondervan to be compensated for their work on the NIV, but I deeply appreciate that a group of scholars is working to make a Bible translation free of charge.

Second, like most Bible translations, it has translation footnotes where there be some alternate possibility for how a verse is translated. However, the NET Bible’s translation footnotes (which are available in YouVersion) are incredibly detailed - often approaching a study Bible’s study notes in thoroughness. For serious study, I’ll still break out my four-pound ESV Study Bible, but having the NET translation footnotes readily available on my phone is great. The online version of the NET Bible goes further; it includes free commentaries by Thomas Constable, Alexander Maclaren, and Matthew Henry. I’ve often found Constable’s notes helpful in study and teaching.

Third, the translation sometimes uses newer scholarship for a bit of a different perspective in its translations. I’ve found this helpful in my own reading of Scripture, so I wanted to share a few examples here. I hope it will provide some new insights for you, too.

A couple of caveats before I continue: Like many former Bible college students, I’ve studied Greek. However, I’m nowhere near qualified to evaluate the work of professional Greek scholars; I can say that I appreciate a particular translation and find it helpful, but I’m limited in how well I can say it’s more or less accurate than others. And I don’t want to make too much out of these translation differences. Some skeptics (and, perhaps, some Christians) will make a big deal out of differences in manuscripts and translations, but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the text in our Bibles are clear and unquestioned.

Ephesians 4:26-27

How the NIV puts it:

“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.

How I’ve usually heard it interpreted: It’s not a sin to be angry, because anger is just an emotion, but we must not sin by letting anger control us. To help avoid the temptation of sinning in our anger, we should deal with it promptly - that same day, if possible.

How the NET puts it:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. Do not give the devil an opportunity.

How the NET translation notes explain it:

Christians are to exercise a righteous indignation over sin in the midst of the believing community (v. 26a; note that v. 25 is restricting the discussion to those in the body of Christ). When other believers sin, such people should be gently and quickly confronted (v. 26b), for if the body of Christ does not address sin in its midst, the devil gains a foothold (v. 27).

If following God really is the priority in our lives, if we’re learning to love the things that he loves and shun the things that he hates, then there are things that should make us angry. The Bible also says that “human anger does not accomplish God’s righteousness” (James 1:20), and there are definitely risks in indulging that anger or in resorting to it too quickly when we see something we don’t approve of - but we ought to have passion, and we ought to take sin within the church seriously.

I also appreciate how this interpretation ties together the passage; Paul starts out Ephesians 5 with a discussion on the importance of holy living, and instead of following that with a random assortment of specific commands, this interpretation has Paul lead into the importance of holy living within the community by promptly and truthfully confronting each other where we fall short.

1 Corinthians 13:12

How the ESV puts it:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

How I’ve usually heard it interpreted: In the larger passage, Paul is talking about how spiritual gifts will no longer be needed in the future. Some people interpret this as referring to the end of the apostolic age and the completion of the canon of Scripture: once that’s happened, we have God’s Word to give us more complete knowledge, and so the partial knowledge through prophecy and speaking in tongues would no longer be needed. A more likely interpretation, I think, is to understand the future state as referring to the second coming of Christ: our knowledge of God on earth is “dim,” imperfect, and partial, but once Jesus returns, our knowledge of God will be complete (to the extent that finite beings’ understanding of the infinite God can be complete).

How the NET puts it:

For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.

How the NET translation notes explain it:

Corinth was well known in the ancient world for producing some of the finest bronze mirrors available. Paul’s point in this analogy, then, is not that our current understanding and relationship with God is distorted (as if the mirror reflected poorly), but rather that it is “indirect,” (i.e., the nature of looking in a mirror) compared to the relationship we will enjoy with him in the future when we see him “face-to-face.”

My postmodern brain likes the idea of seeing “dimly” or “darkly” in an imperfect mirror. (I even referenced it in last week’s blog post.) I struggle at times with doubt and with how to make sense of the numerous and conflicting takes on Christian beliefs, so that imagery resonates with me. And I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong. But what if it’s not what Paul is trying to say here? Through the Spirit of God working through the body of Christ (because that’s what the gifts of the Spirit are - even if we no longer see the same miracles as the first-century believers, the Spirit still does this), and through God’s Word (the Old Testament Scriptures that Paul knew, and the New Testament writings that even in the first century were becoming recognized as Scripture), we can see the reflection of God - accurately, even if it is indirect and incomplete.

Constable gives a modern-day analogy: “Today we might say that we presently look at a photograph, but in the future we will see what the photograph pictures.” It’s the difference between admiring the gorgeous photos of the Wiki Loves Earth contests and seeing those sights for yourself.

The NET translation notes go on to discuss possible Old Testament parallels: God told the Israelites that he spoke with Moses face-to-face instead of “in dark figures [of speech]” (Num 12:8), and Paul talks about Moses in 1 Cor 10 and 2 Cor 3, so he could have easily had Moses in mind here. That makes the imagery even stronger: Moses’ face reflected the glory of God to the Israelites who (through fear and fallenness) could not approach God themselves, but now we can see God’s glory reflected through his Word and his church, and now “we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18). And, finally, in Heaven, we’ll see God directly, and each of us will be (as C.S. Lewis puts it) a “dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness.”

Ephesians 3:11-12

How the NIV puts it:

[God’s intent was] according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

How I’ve usually heard it interpreted: The principle that we’re saved - that we’re able to approach God - only because we have faith in Christ and accept his grace, rather than because of anything that we do, is a core belief of Christianity and was one of the foundational emphases of the Protestant Reformation. It would be hard to overstate its importance. It reminds us of the wonders of God’s grace; it tells us of our need to put our wholehearted trust in God; it knocks down our continued efforts to set up our own standards of behavior as if our works could make us right with God. And yet…

How the NET puts it:

This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access to God by way of Christ’s faithfulness.

How the NET translation notes explain it:

Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith (Christ) is reliable and worthy of such faith.

…And yet, I sometimes fear that we oversimplify or misstate justification by faith. In our zeal to give God, and not us, the credit for our salvation, we draw such a sharp distinction between faith and works that we almost make it sound as if our actions don’t matter (because, if our actions affected our eternal fate, then we’d be saved by works), or we try to argue that even responding to God (by choosing to accept the Gospel and being baptized) is itself a work. And I fear that “faith” has suffered a bit from being turned into church jargon; we know that it’s dead unless it’s accompanied by works (James 2:14-26), but we still define it primarily as “religious belief” or “a set of religious beliefs,” when its fuller meaning includes faithfulness (not merely belief or trust, but holding to one’s promise) and allegiance (belief plus a commitment that’s seen in one’s actions). (All of this is worth a longer discussion in some future post.)

And, in discussing how we’re saved and what we do and how we need to believe, why are we spending so much time talking about “we,” anyway? In discussing the salvation that Christ has wrought for us, shouldn’t we focus on Christ? That’s part of the reason I appreciate the NET Bible’s translation: all of the wondrous gifts that come with our salvation are through Christ’s faithfulness. The focus is on Christ.

The technical terminology here is whether the phrase “faith[fulness] of Christ” is an objective genitive (Christ is the object of “faith,” so “faith in Christ”) or a subjective genitive (Christ is the subject, so “Christ’s faithfulness”). This isn’t the only place where this phrase occurs; the NET translation notes also point out Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20, 3:22; and Phil 3:9 as places where “faith in Christ” should be translated “faithfulness of Christ.” I love going back to those passages and, without minimizing the truth that we’re justified because of our trust in and commitment to God, re-reading them in light of the bigger truth that we’re saved because of Christ’s and God’s faithfulness - because God upheld every promise he made to his people, even at the cost of his Son, and because Christ lived right and was obedient even to the cross.

Wayne Grudem, Donald Trump, and Christian Politics

I really try not to write about politics. I think there are enough people arguing back and forth about politics already, and I'm just not interested in turning this into a political blog. But a family member shared "Letter to an Anti-Trump Christian Friend," by well-known theologian and ethicist Wayne Grudem, so I thought I'd write a reply.

Of course, Grudem will never read it. He no doubt has better things to do. :-) But, if nothing else, it helps organize my own thinking. Maybe it will help others. Before we get into it, I'd like to repeat Bob Russell's words from four years ago:

PRACTICE UNITY! — It’s discouraging to witness how acrimonious some Christians have been toward fellow believers who disagree with them about this election. Even though the Bible instructs us to “Let your gentleness be evident to all,” ugly, demeaning rhetoric is used to attack those in the opposite camp...

I’m a Christian before I’m an American. I love my son and I have profound respect for Dr. Mohler and Max Lucado. They are not mindless or self-righteous because they disagree with me. They are members of my family…and will continue to be long after the election is over.

Whatever we believe about this, practicing love and unity within the body of Christ is more important.

Policy and character: Grudem writes a long reply to his friend "Zachary," and yet I'm afraid that he spends little time actually engaging with his friend's arguments. Zachary's entire argument, it seems, is that Trump's character is such that we shouldn't support him. Grudem spends a great deal of time instead talking about Trump's policies. Grudem acknowledges that we can't ignore character:

There is a minimal standard of behavior which, if a candidate falls below it, would disqualify a candidate from governmental office.

And yet he views this assessment of character as a matter of personal disagreement, almost a matter of personal opinion, rather than something about which we can make pronouncements as Christians:

Can we least agree that the evaluation of a person’s character is a complex process that requires wise judgments based on a wide variety of factors, and that people can legitimately disagree in their honest assessments of someone else’s character?... You may think that Trump has fallen beneath such a standard [of fitness for office]. I do not. But this is a judgment call that each person has to make - about every candidate.

And much of Grudem's open letter focuses on policy, and when a colleague asked Grudem what it would take for Trump to lose Grudem's support, Grudem's answer solely discussed policy.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm on Zachary's side: I believe that Trump's character is such that he should not be president. But, in the interest of dialog and better understanding the perspectives of my brothers and sisters, I would like to know what Grudem (or others who agree with him) would consider to be the minimum standard of character that's needed to serve as president. In 2016, Grudem wrote:

[Trump] 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.

After the Access Hollywood tapes came out, Grudem went further (although he partially retracted that):

His vulgar comments in 2005 about his sexual aggression and assaults against women were morally evil and revealed pride in conduct that violates God’s command, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). I have now read transcripts of some of his obscene interviews with Howard Stern, and they turned my stomach. His conduct was hateful in God’s eyes and I urge him to repent and call out to God for forgiveness, and to seek forgiveness from those he harmed. God intends that men honor and respect women, not abuse them as sexual objects.

If this assessment of Trump's character, from a Christian who supports Trump, is accurate - that he's prideful, impulsive, vindictive, and insulting, that he was obscene and stomach-turning and thrice married and unfaithful to his spouse, that at the age of 59 he bragged on tape of sexual assault and then, when it nearly destroyed his campaign, gave an apology that fell far short of "repenting and calling out to God for forgiveness and seeking forgiveness from those he harmed" - and yet that meets the minimum standard of character for the presidency, then what is that minimum standard of behavior?

Would you hire an employee who demonstrated this character?

And I'd go even further than Grudem. I believe that Trump has demonstrated a willingness to bend or break the rules to get ahead. I believe that he's not honest. I believe that he incites division. I believe that he's demonstrated a disregard for American democratic ideals. (And I'd be happy to discuss any or all of this - preferably over a cup of coffee or, in these COVID times, a Zoom call, because blog posts and Facebook comments don't lend themselves to productive dialog. Getting into it further here would be too much of a digression; this is not a political blog.)

It may sound like I'm making an anti-Trump argument here. And I am, somewhat. But I'm also honestly trying to understand - if character matters, if character can disqualify a person, then what does that look like? If a fellow believer can come to a radically different conclusion about Trump's character, then why do we differ?

I'm afraid that part of the problem is that we look for the worst in our enemies while denying the flaws in those we support. I love how C.S. Lewis phrases it in Mere Christianity, when he talks about forgiving your enemy:

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, "Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that," or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything - God and our friends and ourselves included - as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

And the converse can be true as well - we can find ourselves rationalizing or excusing, calling black white, if it's in someone who we like or whose policies we support.

If you're an opponent of Trump, then are you magnifying his flaws? If you're a supporter, are you overlooking them? How would you feel if similar accusations were made against (depending on where you lie on the political spectrum) Reagan, Clinton, Bush, or Obama?

The media and bias: Grudem suggests that much of the reason that Zachary and others are so opposed to Trump is because of the how the mainstream media portrays him:

This approach [of attacking Trump] has been helped by a shamefully biased mainstream media including the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC. I receive a newsfeed each morning from the New York Times and the Washington Post, and their blatantly biased reporting reveals a hostility toward President Trump unlike anything I’ve seen regarding any other political leader in my lifetime. Therefore it does not surprise me if, after 3 ½ years of listening to this constant character assassination by the dominant media forces in the country, many people distrust Donald Trump.

I would agree that the media is quite hostile toward Trump. By itself, though, that doesn't tell us much. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a political leader is a dynamic and effective proponent of a political agenda, and the media outlets are dominated by people of the opposite ideology, and they consciously or unconsciously let that ideology direct and influence their reporting, then we'd expect the media to be very critical of that politician. But if, for the sake of argument, we assume that a political leader is exceptionally dishonest or self-serving, or that he demonstrates uniquely poor judgment or is a negative influence on a democracy, then we'd also expect the media to be very critical of that politician. So the question of media bias doesn't really solve anything; in effect, we're back where we started - trying to make sense of the man's character.

More broadly, Grudem spends a lot of time talking about the Left versus the conservatives, Democrats versus Republicans, etc., where the Democrats are straying from Christian values, being driven by hatred, attacking the innocent, etc. And he's certainly not the only one on the right to talk this way. And folks on the left, of course, aren't shy about attacking folks on the right - as underinformed, prejudiced, disregarding the poor and oppressed, and so on.

I've realized that I have much less of an us-versus-them view of politics. Certainly, we have our policy differences, and those policy differences are real and important. And there are no doubt bad actors on both sides. But most of the people on the left, I think, are trying to do what's right, to help the disadvantaged and those different than them as best they know how (the LGBT community, racial minorities, the poor, etc.). Most of the people on the right, I think, are trying to do what's right, to make the country better for everyone as best they know how (by upholding rights and principles, by providing the poor with fulfilling jobs and economic growth and meaningful opportunity, etc.).

In other words, we're fallen sinners, made in the image of God. And so, even in our fallenness, we can try for the good, and even when we're trying to do good, it can be tainted by sin and self-deception. To quote Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.

(I'd like to develop this further in a future post. Maybe someday. Sorry to leave you hanging.)

But let's talk about policy: Like Grudem's friend Zachary, I'd prefer to not talk much about specific policies. This is not (contrary to current appearances) a political blog. But Grudem writes, "I’m seeking to influence politics because of the Bible, because of my conviction that the Bible speaks to all of life." And I wholeheartedly agree that the Bible and our faith speaks to all of life, so we can't ignore policy. So, what policies should we support?

As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God's Word. But I also believe that the Bible is at times hard to understand. (Even Peter thought so! (2 Pe 3:16)) As a Christian, I believe in absolute truth. But I also believe that my handle on that truth is limited; I "see in a mirror dimly" (1 Cor 13:12).

I've seen faithful Christians disagree countless times. My grandfather, who I profoundly respect as one of the finest Christians I've known, confided once after hearing a message that he preferred that speakers read from a Bible, rather than recite from memory, because it emphasizes the authority of Scripture as the written Word of God. Some time later, I heard of some African tribe's church services (sadly, I do not remember any specifics) where they preferred that speakers recite Scripture from memory, because it shows that they've "hidden God's word in their heart" (Ps 119:11). Which perspective is right? Both are, in their own way, and in their own time. And I doubt that either my grandfather or these Africans would judge the other; each is trying to glorify Christ to the best of their ability.

And Christian disagreements about the right or best way to live life can become much more involved than this. Clement of Alexandria, a 2nd century Christian theologian, tried to derive from Scripture a complete guide for living our lives. For example, he forbade men to pluck or shave their beards; since God has numbered the hairs on our heads (Mt 10:30), it would be wrong for us to alter that number.

Few people today would agree with Clement, but I'm afraid that some of our policy discussions go down similar lines. There are some principles and practices that I believe are very clear from Scripture. The importance of honesty and integrity in personal and business dealings. Contentment and a limited regard for material goods. Faithfulness to one's spouse. Humility. Love for others. For me, abortion falls in the "very clear" category: humans are created in the image of God, and so human life is sacred, regardless of the stage of human life. But other principles and practices are much less clear. The left says that the best way to care for the poor is by raising taxes and increasing government social programs. The right says that the best way to care for the poor is by maximizing individual freedoms and opportunities and promoting economic growth. Who's right? I don't know! Poverty is a wicked problem. In a sense, both the left and the right are wrong: Jesus promises that poverty will always exist (Mt 26:11), and so while it's good and important to discuss how we can help, no approach can be fully successful.

In his discussion of Christian political values, Grudem doesn't seem to distinguish between the clear and the debatable. He lists clear moral issues (freedom of conscience and protecting the unborn) alongside political questions such as building our military, how our foreign policy should relate to Israel and China, and energy policy. At best, those are complex issues. (Some Christians may argue that a strong military is good; others question the stewardship of spending more on our military than the next ten countries combined; still others present powerful moral and spiritual arguments for pacifism. Some Christians argue that, because of God's promises to Abraham, we should support the modern-day nation of Israel; others point out the significant theological questions involved in the relationship between the Old Testament people of God, the church as the New Testament people of God, and the modern-day nominally religious nation state of Israel.) At worst, these questions are purely temporary and political: protecting the environment is Biblical, but what that looks like in a technologically advanced 21st century democracy is a political question rather than something directly commanded by Scripture. Deciding that it's okay to have public schools and roads and fire departments but not public health care may be a wise policy, but it's not an area where theology sheds much light. A few centuries from now (if Jesus doesn't return), will Christians look back at our clear moral pronouncements on Constitutional originalism and fracking and waterway rights and transgender bathrooms with the same bemusement that we feel toward Clement's hair-counting rules?

I'm not trying to say that these questions are unimportant or aren't worth debating. And they're certainly areas where we can and should apply Christian values and Christian wisdom. But there's a huge difference between advocating positions as a Christian, in an effort to live out our faith, and advocating positions by claiming that they're Christian policies - which seems to be what Grudem is doing. And note that the areas where Christian values are clearest are in the realm of Trump's character, while the areas where things are murkier and more debatable correspond more to Trump's policies - that adds risk to using the latter to tolerate the former.

And, if I may make one more critique: The Word of God is "sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow" (Heb 4:12). I am a sinner. If I hold the Word of God up to my life, I expect to be cut - to see actions and beliefs in my life where I fall short of God's standard. If I hold the Word of God up to a secular organization like the Republican or Democratic party, I expect it to cut even more. In rereading Grudem's list of Christian policies, I cannot help but notice that they align almost completely with the Republican party's agenda. I do not want to judge Grudem here or question his motives - that's not my purpose or role - but we're all capable of self-deception (Jer. 17:9), and we all need to take care that we're evaluating our lives and beliefs in the light of Scripture, instead of using Scripture to justify our lives and beliefs.

Taking the third option: Grudem writes that we have only two choices: Trump or Biden. But we always have choices. (I'd even argue that, in almost any context, saying "we have no choices" is a great lie.) I can vote third party. I can write in a vote for someone I'd rather have. I can write in a vote for Harambe. I can abstain. I can move to Canada.

Some of those aren't good choices. None of them are likely to affect the overwhelming likelihood that either Trump or Biden will be president. But the fact is that my voting for Trump or Biden is also unlikely to affect whether Trump or Biden will be president. No major election has been decided by a single vote. Tennessee is a winner-take-all state where Trump won by over 650,000 votes in 2016. "Ah," you may argue, "but what if some scenario happens this year where the election is decided by an incredibly small margin, as in Florida in 2000?" But hypothetical scenarios cut both ways; I can also imagine scenarios where an effective third-party candidate has a shot at winning but doesn't get the votes because everyone makes the "pragmatic" decision to vote for one of the two major candidates. It sometimes feels as if I'm being told both that my vote is both too powerful (because dire consequences will happen if a major party doesn't get it) and too weak (because I'd be "throwing it away" by voting how I truly want instead of voting for a major party). I'd much rather act how I truly want and trust others to act how they truly want. Even a write-in vote or abstaining isn't a waste; it's a way - maybe not the best way - of letting the major parties know that they're failing to appeal to voters.

Grudem argues that a Trump victory would bring great good, while a Biden victory would bring great harm. But the fact is that we can't know what the outcome of our actions would be. Maybe a Biden victory would allow radical left policies to dominate; maybe Biden would govern as a moderate (as he's been for his entire political career); maybe he'd even be able to reign in the Democrats' progressive wing in a way that persists beyond his presidency. Maybe a Trump victory would be as good as Grudem argues; maybe it would be as bad as Grudem's friend Zachary argues. Maybe a Trump victory would further cement his combative and controversial style of conservatism (both allies and opponents, I think, can agree that he's a combative and controversial figure) in a way that alienates moderates and emboldens opposition and ends up costing conservatism greater losses down the road, while a defeat would allow room for newer, more winsome and persuasive approaches. Which outcome or outcomes are likely is an important discussion, and it can and should influence our vote. But too much of the debate takes on the tone of fearmongering - "Here are all of of the terrible, dire consequences that will happen if my side doesn't win!" - rather than an honest discussion. As Christians, we act as best we can, without fearing the consequences. God promises to take care of us (as Dallas Willard wrote, "This present world is a perfectly safe place for us to be"), and God promises to make all things right, and so the worst possible outcome is merely a temporary unpleasantness.

Of course, for Christians, looking at outcomes is only part of the story; we also believe that some actions are inherently right or wrong. Grudem acknowledges this ("I firmly believe that we as Christians should never intentionally sin in order to bring about what we think to be a good result... but I see nothing wrong with speaking and writing in support of a certain political position or political candidate"). Somewhat surprisingly, though, he doesn't acknowledge it in his discussion about how our only two choices are Biden or Trump. This is a critical question for a Christian ethicist. For me, I believe that Trump's flaws are significant enough that I cannot say that I support / want / am in favor of him being president, so I cannot vote for him with a clear conscience. In 2016, I believed that Clinton's flaws were significant enough that I could not, with a clear conscience, support her being president.

And, to be totally honest and transparent, I have trouble understanding how other believers can support Trump. That has at times been a struggle for me over these last few years. But Scripture seems to allow room for us to follow our individual consciences without dictating that we all agree (Rom 14, 1 Cor 8). We don't necessarily have to see eye-to-eye, as long as we love each other and work together for Christ and his kingdom.

What about our witness?: That brings me, in a roundabout way, to my last concern with all of this - are our actions helping or hurting the kingdom?

Grudem is a thorough and prolific scholar. I've read parts of his 1264-page magnum opus, Systematic Theology. I've read excerpts from his 1296-page book, Christian Ethics. In his open letter to Zachary, he references his 625-page book, Politics According to the Bible, where he lays out much of his rationale for his political views. I don't always agree with him, but that's okay; it's not my place to judge his views (Rom 14:4), and he's still my brother in Christ.

My concern, though, is that most unbelievers aren't going to follow Grudem's thousands of pages of painstaking Biblical reasoning, or, on this topic, his careful distinctions between disapproving of Trump's character while supporting Trump as a candidate, of saying in 2016 that Trump is "morally objectionable" and "not morally good" but that supporting him is morally good. To much of the unbelieving world, the situation is much simpler:

• Evangelical Christians have loudly and consistently condemned immorality among the broader culture.
• Evangelical Christians are willing to support and defend someone who's shown that same immorality when he supports their political positions.

Or, to make the comparison more pointed:

• Evangelical Christians opposed Democrat Bill Clinton, a lifelong Southern Baptist, because of accusations of dishonesty and abuse of power, and because four women accused him of sexual harassment and assault, and because of two affairs (including an affair with an intern while president).
• Evangelical Christians support and defend Republican Donald Trump, whose relationship with the traditional Christian faith has been spotty, in spite of accusations of dishonesty and fraud and abuse of power, and in spite of at least twenty-five women who have accused him of sexual harassment and assault, and two divorces, and multiple affairs (including paying off a porn star to remain quiet about an alleged affair during his presidential campaign).

And I believe that this is a fair comparison and a fair view. And I'm trying to state it as factually as possible, without starting an argument or passing judgment. And I know that we can present all sorts of reasons and explanations for why we've done it, but I'm afraid it will unavoidably hurt our witness. And if we drive people away from the beauty and love of Christ's kingdom and toward a Christless eternity in hell out of our desire to see Republican political goals triumph over Democratic policy goals, then that's tragic, no matter how good our reasons and explanations are, and no matter how much good comes from those policy goals, even if the good could somehow outweigh the harm.

So what's the point?: Believe it or not, I'm not trying to convince anyone how to vote. I doubt that's possible at this point, regardless; I think everyone's minds were made up a long time ago. So where do we go from here? A few suggestions:

• Watch your affections. We're shaped by what we do. (Psychologists talk about cognitive dissonance and rationalization; Christians talk about disciplines and how our affections form us, but the effect is the same.) Voting or not voting in a particular way may be fine, but we can make a choice without being a fan; we can vote for a candidate in the ballot box without spending our time and energy supporting, defending, or excusing that candidate.
• Hold people accountable. With love, critique our allies, each other, and ourselves as consistently as we do our opponents. Hold me accountable - if I write something wrong, let me know.
• Watch our involvement in politics. Involvement in our democracy is good, but the temptations of political power, the thrill of competition, the community found in a common earthly cause, and the fear of what the other side could do can all be powerful temptations to let it become more important than it should be.
• Stay humble. Since we're finite and fallen, there's a good chance we're wrong. Read other viewpoints. Keep learning.
• Love each other. Let's stay united in the body of Christ.

I love all of you, my brothers and sisters who are reading this, whatever you feel about Trump. And if I've hurt or angered anyone by any of this, I ask your forgiveness. God bless.