Post by Cindy on Aug 4, 2016 10:06:24 GMT -5
By Kevin Baird (Excerpts)
Dr. Grudem admits that as the primaries started he could not support Donald Trump and even advocated against him. I do not know upon what basis that advocation was made except to say that Dr. Grudem is known for his biblical precision which can only make me surmise that his lack of support was rooted in his biblical worldview. Yet now, he makes the case that support for Donald Trump would not violate a biblical worldview and in fact, might be supported by it. It is this type of theological schizophrenia from well-known evangelicals that has made this election cycle most frustrating. It is the fear of Hillary Clinton and the well established probabilities of her presidency juxtaposed to the skeptical hope of Donald Trump and the mystical future of his promises.
My critique of Dr. Grudem is summarized in FOUR (4) areas which I believe are leading evangelicals further down the road of disappointment and to national disaster.
1. An Inconsistent Hermeneutic applied in Elections.
What more serious accusation could be leveled against a distinguished professor of systematic theology than practicing an unsystematic theological conclusion? Dr. Grudem contends that Trump is “flawed”, but not “evil”. His use of vocabulary is important because that leaves the door open for ANY person practicing ANY behavior to be morally justifiable for a Christian to support. In fact, he goes so far to list those flaws comprehensively and declare that voting for Trump is “morally good and right”. As a theologian, Dr. Grudem is well aware of the doctrine of depravity and how we all are subject to the frailties of our humanity, but what is astounding to me is that he considers none of these “flaws” (which the Scripture calls “sins”) could be disqualifying for civil service.
I have written before that Romans 13:4, 6; clearly references civil leaders as “ministers” in God’s sight. If we are to believe that the church’s ministers are to be qualified by some minimal standard of conduct, then it is not some unattainable expectation that our civil officials would have similar expectations. Especially ones who have unequivocally stated that they have no need to ask for forgiveness and have yet to retract that publicly. Is there any “flaw” that Dr. Grudem would consider so egregious that it might disqualify them from the presidency? Apparently yes, because he is most vehemently opposed to Clinton (as am I), but the question that remains unanswered is upon what basis or standard does the GOP candidate get a pass while the Democratic candidate gets nailed? He answers that question later in his endorsement and I will examine momentarily in this critique.....
2. The Baptism of Pragmatism
Dr. Grudem, who is known for his biblical fidelity, moves quickly to a list of concerns we have as evangelicals (of which I concur) in his article. The case is made that Trump is a more pragmatic choice in seeing these concerns addressed or changed. In fact, he quotes a minor prophet concerning “seeking the welfare of a nation” and then leaps to the conclusion that any vote outside of one for Trump is helping Hillary. Therefore, a vote for Trump is morally right because we “cannot stand by and do nothing”. I have called this type of reasoning “situational pragmatism”. It is when normally consistent biblical worldview thinkers suspend their worldview in order to justify a more pragmatic approach due to what they consider “extenuating circumstances”. The colloquial phrase would be that they are trying “to help God out” or “the intention justifies the methodology”.
Pragmatism is a virtue that is difficult to prove by Scripture. Is there really a need to list the scores of stories where pragmatism was eschewed and obedience to God’s Word was implemented? Since when do we as believers default to pragmatism just because it “seems” to be the way to go? I seem to remember a verse that states, “There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death” (Proverbs 14:12). If that isn’t applicable to unbridled pragmatism, then perhaps any sin or pragmatic methodology can be baptized as permissible by God. I am confident that Dr. Grudem would reject that line of reasoning for he is a committed complimentarian and would reject suspending gender roles because of pragmatic concerns, so I can only assume that he has compartmentalized his election philosophy outside of his biblical worldview. In essence, Dr. Grudem feels it is now time to “help God out”, by suspending clear Scripture in selecting leadership because the choices we are presented demand it. That is bad theology.
3. The Authority of Probability
... Yes, I have heard all that Trump has promised. Yes, I know Clinton’s track record. However, Dr. Grudem ostensibly wrote a policy paper for Trump that can only be based in probability. What are the chances? Who really knows? The question becomes, do we as Christians trust the probabilities of Trump executing those promises (some of which are projections of our hopes that have zero chance of happening), or, do we follow the pattern of Scripture by evaluating people by their “fruit”? At no time does Dr. Grudem suggest that Donald Trump is a perfect candidate, in fact, he lists most of the concerns that almost all of us have towards him. The question Dr. Grudem never answers is why he thinks Trump is biblically qualified to be empowered by vote to this position. It is without question that Christians have and will be ruled by morally corrupt, flawed, and evil people. The question that is never answered is, are we required to empower those people to leadership? I can accept God’s providence in allowing an Ahab or Jezebel to rule, but am I expected to empower either one to that position?
Dr. Grudem never wrestles with the theological possibility of 3rd party candidates. He never considers the ways of God in Scripture of pulling people out of obscurity for His purposes or calling His people into a strategy which defies human logic and probabilities. I can assure you the stories of Gideon, Jehoshaphat, and Joshua would not fit the filter of “probability”. We are not called as Christians to watch polling data, consider conventional political wisdom, or choose between two false choices. We are called to obey God fearlessly even at risk of ridicule. Earthly probabilities do not trump (no pun intended) Scriptural precept.
4. Yielding to a situational ethic.
The reason this election is causing Christians so much consternation is because we have been drawn from the simplicity of obedience. As a pastor friend of mine, Cary Gordon, states, “Obedience is simple; disobedience is complicated”. This election cycle has caused division and confusion in the ranks of Christians because we intuitively know that we are applying a situational ethic to our vote. ...
Continued:
drkevinbaird.com/wp/2016/07/29/__trashed/
Dr. Grudem admits that as the primaries started he could not support Donald Trump and even advocated against him. I do not know upon what basis that advocation was made except to say that Dr. Grudem is known for his biblical precision which can only make me surmise that his lack of support was rooted in his biblical worldview. Yet now, he makes the case that support for Donald Trump would not violate a biblical worldview and in fact, might be supported by it. It is this type of theological schizophrenia from well-known evangelicals that has made this election cycle most frustrating. It is the fear of Hillary Clinton and the well established probabilities of her presidency juxtaposed to the skeptical hope of Donald Trump and the mystical future of his promises.
My critique of Dr. Grudem is summarized in FOUR (4) areas which I believe are leading evangelicals further down the road of disappointment and to national disaster.
1. An Inconsistent Hermeneutic applied in Elections.
What more serious accusation could be leveled against a distinguished professor of systematic theology than practicing an unsystematic theological conclusion? Dr. Grudem contends that Trump is “flawed”, but not “evil”. His use of vocabulary is important because that leaves the door open for ANY person practicing ANY behavior to be morally justifiable for a Christian to support. In fact, he goes so far to list those flaws comprehensively and declare that voting for Trump is “morally good and right”. As a theologian, Dr. Grudem is well aware of the doctrine of depravity and how we all are subject to the frailties of our humanity, but what is astounding to me is that he considers none of these “flaws” (which the Scripture calls “sins”) could be disqualifying for civil service.
I have written before that Romans 13:4, 6; clearly references civil leaders as “ministers” in God’s sight. If we are to believe that the church’s ministers are to be qualified by some minimal standard of conduct, then it is not some unattainable expectation that our civil officials would have similar expectations. Especially ones who have unequivocally stated that they have no need to ask for forgiveness and have yet to retract that publicly. Is there any “flaw” that Dr. Grudem would consider so egregious that it might disqualify them from the presidency? Apparently yes, because he is most vehemently opposed to Clinton (as am I), but the question that remains unanswered is upon what basis or standard does the GOP candidate get a pass while the Democratic candidate gets nailed? He answers that question later in his endorsement and I will examine momentarily in this critique.....
2. The Baptism of Pragmatism
Dr. Grudem, who is known for his biblical fidelity, moves quickly to a list of concerns we have as evangelicals (of which I concur) in his article. The case is made that Trump is a more pragmatic choice in seeing these concerns addressed or changed. In fact, he quotes a minor prophet concerning “seeking the welfare of a nation” and then leaps to the conclusion that any vote outside of one for Trump is helping Hillary. Therefore, a vote for Trump is morally right because we “cannot stand by and do nothing”. I have called this type of reasoning “situational pragmatism”. It is when normally consistent biblical worldview thinkers suspend their worldview in order to justify a more pragmatic approach due to what they consider “extenuating circumstances”. The colloquial phrase would be that they are trying “to help God out” or “the intention justifies the methodology”.
Pragmatism is a virtue that is difficult to prove by Scripture. Is there really a need to list the scores of stories where pragmatism was eschewed and obedience to God’s Word was implemented? Since when do we as believers default to pragmatism just because it “seems” to be the way to go? I seem to remember a verse that states, “There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death” (Proverbs 14:12). If that isn’t applicable to unbridled pragmatism, then perhaps any sin or pragmatic methodology can be baptized as permissible by God. I am confident that Dr. Grudem would reject that line of reasoning for he is a committed complimentarian and would reject suspending gender roles because of pragmatic concerns, so I can only assume that he has compartmentalized his election philosophy outside of his biblical worldview. In essence, Dr. Grudem feels it is now time to “help God out”, by suspending clear Scripture in selecting leadership because the choices we are presented demand it. That is bad theology.
3. The Authority of Probability
... Yes, I have heard all that Trump has promised. Yes, I know Clinton’s track record. However, Dr. Grudem ostensibly wrote a policy paper for Trump that can only be based in probability. What are the chances? Who really knows? The question becomes, do we as Christians trust the probabilities of Trump executing those promises (some of which are projections of our hopes that have zero chance of happening), or, do we follow the pattern of Scripture by evaluating people by their “fruit”? At no time does Dr. Grudem suggest that Donald Trump is a perfect candidate, in fact, he lists most of the concerns that almost all of us have towards him. The question Dr. Grudem never answers is why he thinks Trump is biblically qualified to be empowered by vote to this position. It is without question that Christians have and will be ruled by morally corrupt, flawed, and evil people. The question that is never answered is, are we required to empower those people to leadership? I can accept God’s providence in allowing an Ahab or Jezebel to rule, but am I expected to empower either one to that position?
Dr. Grudem never wrestles with the theological possibility of 3rd party candidates. He never considers the ways of God in Scripture of pulling people out of obscurity for His purposes or calling His people into a strategy which defies human logic and probabilities. I can assure you the stories of Gideon, Jehoshaphat, and Joshua would not fit the filter of “probability”. We are not called as Christians to watch polling data, consider conventional political wisdom, or choose between two false choices. We are called to obey God fearlessly even at risk of ridicule. Earthly probabilities do not trump (no pun intended) Scriptural precept.
4. Yielding to a situational ethic.
The reason this election is causing Christians so much consternation is because we have been drawn from the simplicity of obedience. As a pastor friend of mine, Cary Gordon, states, “Obedience is simple; disobedience is complicated”. This election cycle has caused division and confusion in the ranks of Christians because we intuitively know that we are applying a situational ethic to our vote. ...
Continued:
drkevinbaird.com/wp/2016/07/29/__trashed/