I think Gerson misses a central set of points, starting with the fact that a lot of “fundagelicals” didn’t vote for Trump as much as they voted against Hilliary. Troubled by Trump’s philandering? Offset by the woman who ran her husband’s bimbo eruptions team. Troubled by Trump’s statements about Mexicans? Offset by the woman who just yesterday bad mouthed half of the country.
Moreover, I think Gerson elevates his pet issues and reduces those of many evangelicals. Getting the life issue right does indeed cover a lot of sins, for example. So there is something….just a wee bit disingenuous about the whole deal, to put it mildly.
His attempt to correlate modern evangelicalism’s difficulties with premillenial eschatology is interesting, but because he mishandles a lot of the evidence, it simply fails.
Yet once again, an anti-evangelical telling Evangelicals how they ought to think. Perhaps he should restrict himself to telling Progressives how they should think and behave, and point out the inconsistencies in their positions. Presumably, he would then be talking about something he actually understands.
The problem with the “voting against, not voting for” scenario is that elections don’t work that way. There is no avoiding the fact that the one you vote for is one you are helping win. It is also a vote against whoever the alternative is, but it is never only that. That fact has to be factored into the ethics of voting — and even then, utilitarianism and pragmatism are not Christian ethics.
I’m no idealist. I don’t think the one I help win has to agree with me on every point, much less, be a saint. He has to be a decent man and an adult and not the incarnation of nearly every aspect of Proverbs’ “fool.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion
NewMissing a lot
I think Gerson misses a central set of points, starting with the fact that a lot of “fundagelicals” didn’t vote for Trump as much as they voted against Hilliary. Troubled by Trump’s philandering? Offset by the woman who ran her husband’s bimbo eruptions team. Troubled by Trump’s statements about Mexicans? Offset by the woman who just yesterday bad mouthed half of the country.
Moreover, I think Gerson elevates his pet issues and reduces those of many evangelicals. Getting the life issue right does indeed cover a lot of sins, for example. So there is something….just a wee bit disingenuous about the whole deal, to put it mildly.
His attempt to correlate modern evangelicalism’s difficulties with premillenial eschatology is interesting, but because he mishandles a lot of the evidence, it simply fails.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewHere we go again
Yet once again, an anti-evangelical telling Evangelicals how they ought to think. Perhaps he should restrict himself to telling Progressives how they should think and behave, and point out the inconsistencies in their positions. Presumably, he would then be talking about something he actually understands.
G. N. Barkman
NewThere are no votes against on the ballot
The problem with the “voting against, not voting for” scenario is that elections don’t work that way. There is no avoiding the fact that the one you vote for is one you are helping win. It is also a vote against whoever the alternative is, but it is never only that. That fact has to be factored into the ethics of voting — and even then, utilitarianism and pragmatism are not Christian ethics.
I’m no idealist. I don’t think the one I help win has to agree with me on every point, much less, be a saint. He has to be a decent man and an adult and not the incarnation of nearly every aspect of Proverbs’ “fool.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewDavid French's take
French is kind to Trump voters here. He emphasizes the difference between a reluctant vote vs. continued active cheerleading.
Some well stated points.
/https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/evangelicals-support-donald-trum…
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.