Gary DeMar, Christian Reconstructionist author, made a facebook post recently that I saw shared and realized it deserved a blog response. The unfortunate thing about DeMar’s logic is that it is the same logic that is used by the “religious right” and other assorted compromising supporters of Donald Trump. I will be brief, for Trump supporters neither need many words nor deserve them. Here is the original post:
//
Politics is messy. All you have to do is read the Bible to see that it’s true. Maybe it’s time we stop reading David’s Psalms because he was an adulterer and anaccomplice to murder, and in his later years slept with a young woman to “keep him warm,” although he did not “know” her (1 Kings 1:1-4). Try that today: “Yes, dear, I slept with this beautiful young girl to keep me warm, but I didn’t have sex with her. Doctor’s orders.” Like I said, politics is messy. Maybe it’s time we stop reading Proverbs and Ecclesiastes because Solomon had multiple foreign wives, horses, weapons of war, and an accumulation of wealth, all in violation of the law regarding kings (I Kings 10; Deut. 17:14-20). In 1 Kings 11, Solomon’s wives (hundreds of them) turned his heart against God. “Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. . .” (v. 6). The apostle Paul appealed to the pagan Roman ruler Caesar (Acts 25:11) in order to avoid being killed by the Jews, his own countrymen (23:21-14). Like I said, politics is messy. Do I think Trump is the perfect candidate? Absolutely not. Will I be disappointed with some of Trump’s policies if he wins? You can count on it. Hillary is far more politically connected, protected by the media, and has proposed policies that will result in a further economic downturn, an influx of foreign radicals, and additional laws implemented attacking Christians.//
I won’t respond point by point. This doesn’t deserve or need a point by point response. There is not a shred of Biblical principle in any of this. I only intend to briefly respond. Furthermore, I won’t be rehashing all of the old arguments for why Trump is unqualified. My post about Darrell Castle proves this more than sufficiently, if Castle is unqualified surely Trump is not qualified either. This post can be read here:https://reconvenantersassanach.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/why-i-am-not-voting-for-darrell-castle/
The issue, as usual, is not perfection. It is qualification. Time and time again this distinction is ignored by the pragmatists, accusing those of us who have principles and who not buy into the pragmatic argument of being perfectionists. We are not. And to assert that we do is insane.
To illustrate this very simply, imagine two candidates for pastor. One is an unrepentant adulterer, the other is an unrepentant murderer. You would rightly choose neither. Or imagine you were given the choice between a standard PCUSA liberal and a papist. Any kind of good magisterial Protestant or even Bible believing Baptist would choose neither. Does that mean you are a perfectionist? Of course not. 1 Timothy 3 lists basic qualifications, and you choose a man that generally (though not perfectly) fits those qualifications. In the same way, as discussed previously in a previous article, there are basic standards of qualification for civil authorities. You can vote for those who imperfectly meet those qualifications, as long as they meet them. You cannot vote for those who don’t. Why this is incredibly controversial in the political realm while being common sense in the ecclesiastical realm is beyond me. But simply put, the pragmatists are dishonest. They lie and say we are demanding a perfect candidate but nobody has ever said this. That a professing reconstructionist would fall into this kind of bad logic is disappointing at best, and proof that the modern theonomy movement is hopelessly infected with American pragmatism at worst.
David repented of his sins. He also established the true religion. The same is true for Solomon. To compare these men, flawed though they were, to Trump is insane. And while Paul did appeal to Caesar, providing precedence for attempting to persuade wicked leaders not to violate human rights (though I also think Paul was primarily motivated by seeking to bring the gospel to Rome), that is certainly no basis for actually voting for wicked leaders. There is a huge difference between appealing to a wicked man who is already in authroity to hear your case, and actually choosing to put a wicked man in office.
The post I quoted is totally devoid of exegesis. I hope we will see reconstructionists oppose it in the strongest of terms. This is not Christian politics, it is only pragmatic utilitarianism masquerading as such.
reconvenantersassanach 