A respectful response to my friend John Piper about voting for Trump

I think it’s acceptable if it is indeed a reasonable application of a Biblical principle. That noted, there are often a lot of intermediate steps between Biblical principle and application in politics, with possibly exceptions like those who advocate defunding the police smacking themselves with Romans 13. The big gap I see in most pulpits is those intermediate steps in any number of areas, not just politics.

Regarding candidates, that’s simply one step further than pointing out the Biblical considerations for various political positions. Overall, my position is that most politicking from the pulpit is regrettable, but it’s not outright banned.

it’s acceptable if it is indeed a reasonable application of a Biblical principle.

That’s always the tough point. Even with something as simple as moderate alcohol, we have SI members who see total abstinence as a reasonable application of the Biblical warnings concerning alcohol. While I don’t apply the Word in that way, I do think it’s a reasonable application. I don’t believe that we should be in the business of judging the applications of others as unreasonable (ends up despising our brother). Nor should we be in the business of demanding that our brothers accept our applications as reasonable (ends up judging).

Paul explained his convictions and he was careful to say, “I say (I, not the Lord)” and “judge for yourselves what I say.” And he accepted that not everyone would follow his convictions.

Political decisions require a great deal more layer and complicated Biblical principles and applications. But to express from the pulpit an application about politics is in the same category as to express a view on alcohol. Either way, you need to humbly express your judgment as yours and not thus saith the Lord.

Grudem, in my opinion, approached this talk with humility, saying, this is my judgment - you may differ.