The Covenantal Case Against Trump
When the righteous increase, the people rejoice,
but when the wicked rule, the people groan. (Proverbs 29:2)
Introduction
Before I start expounding on this article's title and purpose, I wanted to make these distinctions and qualifications.
First, my good friend and fellow Lamb's Reign writer Jordan Wilson recently released his article on why he is voting for Trump as a Reconstructionist. I have purposely not read his article yet and considering that, my article serves as a different perspective as opposed to a rebuttal. I'm sure some of my points will address at least some of his arguments, but this is not a systematic answer to Jordan's views. I have heard that his article is, in typical Jordan Wilson fashion, level-headed and fair. I recommend everyone give it a read.
Second, the purpose of this article is to focus on why Reconstructionists (and Christians in general) should not vote for Trump. The purpose of this article is not to make a case for Joe Biden, Jo Jorgensen, Thomas Hoefling, or any other candidate. Though I may share a few thoughts about a Democratic vote or a Third Party vote, that is not the focus of my article. I will say now that I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, and I will not be doing so this year.
Third, I want to stress the critical distinction between reluctantly voting for Trump and being a Trump cheerleader. Far too many have become de-facto cheerleaders of a wicked man in, perhaps, an attempt to justify their support of the man. We are to be truth-tellers regardless of who we are politically supporting. A reluctant and truthful Trump voter, Jordan Wilson, for example, is in a different moral category than writers and leaders who cover up Trump's sins and set up a false image of their political idol.
Fourth, I'm not very interested in a detailed policy discussion in this article. That has its place, but this article's focus is ethical, philosophical, and theological instead of comparing policies. This approach is, in part, because the concern of this article isn't other candidates.
Fifth, although this article's name is "The Covenantal Case Against Trump" do not take that to mean that every argument is specifically covenantal or necessitates a covenantal hermeneutic. I expect many to find worth in these arguments regardless of their view on covenantalism. However, I believe a self-consciously covenantal approach to voting will lead you to this position.
Why people vote for who they vote for is a question that has many answers. I want to go through some of the most common categories of thoughts regarding this question. Some of these reasons are better than others, certainly. Still, I wanted to provide a very brief overview of why Christians decide to vote for one candidate or another and why most of these reasons fail to justify a Trump vote adequately. Some of these arguments will naturally overlap with other views.
Pragmatic Considerations
Pragmatism is the philosophy that the truth or morality of a belief or action is determined, at least in part, with the success of the practical application of the action or belief. In short, the action is helpful to me, so it is the correct action or belief. This is antinomianism and repugnant to God's Law. However, this does not mean that every action taken because "it works" is an action taken because of pragmatism. As is often the case, the devil is in the "ism." However, when we consider pragmatic choices that reject pragmatism as a worldview, the pragmatic option's prima facie acceptability is still not assumed. Just because someone is not falling into a thoroughly antinomian worldview by adopting pragmatism does not mean that their choice isn't accepting certain pragmatism presuppositions.
Electability
The most common argument when objectively superior third-party candidates are discussed is the problem of electability. These third-party candidates do not have a chance to win; therefore, a vote for them is "wasted" or "worthless". Though I agree a third-party win is unlikely in 2020, we cannot assume third-party voting is worthless. After all, this pragmatic argument has become so common because people believe the idea. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy in which third-party candidates can't win because people don't think they can win.
Regardless, just because a candidate is popular, and therefore electable, does not mean we have a reason to vote for him or her. This argument has some limited and wrong-headed applicability for arguing against a third-party candidate but has no relevance for why we should actively support a candidate.
Self-Defense Vote
Some, especially in the libertarian "camp" that I am a part of, have argued that Trump's vote is a "self-defense" vote. The logic is that in our current political environment, most cases of voting are an act of violence in that most policies theoretically supported by the voting are enforced by an unjustified level of force or threat of force. Therefore, a vote that mitigates that aggression is seen as an act of justified force because force was first used against you. Essentially, voting may not be justified on a contextless island, but voting in response to aggression and harm is warranted. Voting is pulling a gun after someone has already pulled theirs.
This theory has some legitimate credibility if pragmatism is assumed, but it greatly depends on the situation. When we vote for Trump, are we genuinely defending ourselves and our loved ones (a righteous pursuit), or are we trading one threat for another? Are we disarming one gang of thugs only to reinforce another gang of thugs? Are we merely choosing what flavor of tyranny? Are we slowing down the advance of one type of oppression while investing in future forms just as harmful? All of these questions must be accessed before the "self-defense" argument is adopted and, at least for the most part, the self-defense argument is made but rarely supported.
Short Term versus Long Term Pragmatism
Is Trump the better choice for conservative Christians because his administration is less of a problem for Christians? If one does a policy by policy comparison, this may be true. However, this is only politically true and only true in the short term. The blunder of the pragmatist is often their shortsightedness and their reductionistic considerations.
Scripture teaches us to be wise in a manner that will reap generational rewards. Scripture teaches us to invest in the long term good even if it means a loss in short term or temporary benefits. Though many verses teach this principle (Luke 14:28-30; Proverbs 6:6-8), few teach it as clearly as Matthew 25:14-30.
For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents,d to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
Politically, we may be better off with Trump than Biden for the next few years, but this ignores our duty to invest in the future and have a generational impact on society. Especially if you are postmillennial, this "four years at a time" focus should strike you as folly. For many decades, the political cycle has consistently drifted left, and the short term focus has given us liberals who are more liberal and conservatives who are also more liberal. Voting incentivizes power structures. When theologically conservative evangelicals vote for ever-increasingly wicked men, this does nothing but incentivize worse candidates. We are signaling, through the representative mechanism of voting, that we will tolerate worse and worse candidates. A narrowly focused pragmatism signals to the political power structures that integrity is not a factor. Why should the RNC throw their weight behind a good man when we vote for bad men? There's obvious and direct causation between getting bad candidates and men and women voting for bad candidates. The political gatekeepers pay attention, and how we vote this year will determine political strategies in another four years, eight years, and twelve years.
Suppose you're the type of person who believes that government handouts incentivize problems like unemployment and underemployment. Still, you don't think consistently voting in evil men doesn't incentivize even worse men running and winning. In that case, I think we have a philosophical inconsistency.
What we do in 2020 will affect 2024 and so on. This shouldn't be something that needs to be said, but it must be said. We don't get good candidates because we vote for bad candidates. It is that simple. The solution is also simple. Don't vote for bad candidates. If all of the nation's serious believers refused to vote for wicked men, the RNC would not win another national election. Sincere believers aren't the largest Republican demographic; however, it is large enough to incentivize a legitimate change. We have no reason to think that the Republican candidate in 2024 will be better than Trump.
Politically, thinking "four years at a time" is a strategy that ceases to reap benefits as soon as those four years are up. Short term pragmatism is a losing strategy. If it were an eschatological position, it would be a defeatist form of premillennial dispensationalism. It is a futile attempt to slow down the spread of darkness instead of a prophetic call to spread the Light.
Cultural Pragmatism
But the pragmatist blunder does not stop at being short-sighted; it is also often reductionistically focused on political pragmatism to the detriment of the broader culture. Political leadership and the morality of those leaders have a cultural impact. The fruit of four more years of Trump will not only be political but also cultural.
Pastor John Piper had this to say about this moral corruption.
In fact, I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person.
This is true not only because flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness are self-incriminating, but also because they are nation-corrupting. They move out from centers of influence to infect whole cultures. The last five years bear vivid witness to this infection at almost every level of society.
This truth is not uniquely Christian: "A little leaven leavens the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6). "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Corinthians 15:33). Whether you embrace that company in your house or on social media, it corrupts. There are sins that "lead people into more and more ungodliness" as "their talk [spreads] like gangrene" (2 Timothy 2:16–17).
There is a character connection between rulers and subjects. When the Bible describes a king by saying, "He sinned and made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That's the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill.
Though I can't entirely agree with everything John Piper has to say (including some thoughts in this article), we show our folly by dismissing his core point.
Piper does us a service by pointing out the cultural and moral implications of voting for wicked men. We cannot ignore his main point when considering the practical effects of our voting. Yes, let us consider the long-term political impact, but we should also consider the moral degradation that goes along with supporting morally compromised candidates. Some have flippantly dismissed Piper's thoughts as him comparing mass murder (abortion) with "being mean," but the sensationalized abortion appeal is nothing but hype and election propaganda. There is nothing to suggest that the Republicans being in the White House has any positive effect on abortion.
Abortion Propaganda
This is not to say that Trump wants more abortion or abortion funding, and I'm certainly not saying that Biden secretly wants to decrease abortion. I am saying that there is no correlation between which political party controls the White House and reduced abortion rates. Some statistics have shown that abortion rates have steadily declined through both Republican and Democratic administrations. However, this decline is suspect because of how abortion is defined and the ever-increasing availability of over-the-counter abortifacient birth control methods. Regardless, these stats show no correlation between who is in control of the Executive branch of the US Government and abortion statistics.
We also know that Planned Parenthood funding has spiked under Donald J. Trump. He has authorized more funding to the leading mass murderers than any other president in US history. Some have argued that Trump is not responsible for this funding. If this is your argument, I will refer you to Jr. High-level government textbooks or an episode of Schoolhouse Rock. For the American system to function correctly, each federal government branch must act on its Constitutionally defined checks and balances. One check the executive has against the legislative branch is the ability to veto budgets. So when the legislative branch produces a budget with record-breaking abortion funding, it is not just the right, it is the President's duty to veto that budget. If this leads to a temporary federal government shutdown, then so be it. We have dealt with shutdowns for issues far less pressing than the funding of mass murder.
With all that said, it's also important to point out that Donald Trump is pro-choice. He affirms at least three different exceptions to abortion, and these exceptions are known to be widely exploited and abused by the abortion industry. If we condemn Biden for being pro-choice, how pro-choice must a candidate be before condemning that candidate? Are we content with voting for a less pro-choice candidate? If so, then being pro-choice was never the true standard.
Abortion is a vitally important issue, but it is not an vital issue for Trump. I affirm the need to sometimes consider one issue above all others, but it is not as simple as affirming the issue's importance. Abortion is the most pressing issue of the day, but that matters little if our "good" choice does not act righteously regarding that most important issue.
Sexuality Propaganda
Another cultural compromise that has happened under the Trump administration is the shifting battleground on sexuality. The hyper-politicized arguments over sexuality have morphed from same-sex marriage's legitimacy to the legitimacy of federally mandated pro-transgender education. Trump, even in his first term's campaign, positioned himself as pro-LGBT. Now, same-sex marriage is almost assumed while the fight has shifted radically to the left. Evangelicals enthusiastically praise Trump for being against the radical fringe of the left while both sides are passively assuming leftist ideas.
We have already lost the war on sexuality, and now it is just a matter of how bad we're going to lose. If you read some of the same Conservative thought leaders I do, it would almost appear that gay marriage is fine, but training on preferred pronouns is evil "cultural marxism." This isn't because they affirm gay marriage, but because it is no longer part of the conversation; it is assumed and brushed under the rug. The pro-Trump cadre signals that they are big, bad, and tough on sexuality while giving a pass to institutionally endorsed sexual sin. As long as Trump aggressively tweets about the most radical 5% of the LGBT agenda, he is seen as their culture warrior savior, bravely fighting the Social Justice Warriors and liberals. All the while, he says homosexual marriage is "settled" and not the law of the land. Note that this appeal to stare decisis is the same argument used by the Republican-controlled Supreme Court when they upheld Roe v. Wade in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If gay marriage is "settled," is abortion also settled? Regardless, the entire debate on sexuality has shifted, and it seems like no one wants to acknowledge it. The idea that Trump is our "strong man" against sexual liberalism is a scam. This bait and switch is the fruit of moral compromise.
Ideological Purism
When "voting for the lesser of two evils" is denounced, an all too often repeated retort is bound to come up. "All men are evil" or "no one is perfect but Jesus" are some of the most common responses to the suggestion that we shouldn't vote for evil men. These responses, however, are both silly and based on a shallow understanding of Scripture. Someone can come along and quote Ecclesiastes 7:20 or Romans 3:23, but these verses aren't addressing the issue at hand.
God's Word teaches that no one is entirely good except Jesus, and we are all sinners in need of God's Grace. This much is plain. However, Scripture also speaks of righteous or good men (Proverbs 24:16, 12:10; Acts 11:24; Hebrews 11), and other men are spoken of as being particularly wicked (2 Kings 16:3-4; Proverbs 6:12-16; Psalm 10:7; Matthew 12:34). When men talk of choosing between the lesser of two evils, they do not speak of our standing before God as broken, fallen, sinful humans. Instead, they are speaking about meeting a basic standard of morality. But what standard should that be?
Qualifications
We are given lists of requirements for just rulership a few times in Scripture. Additionally, a righteous ruler is good for the people (Proverbs 29:2).
In Exodus, we see what kind of ruler God demands.
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Every great matter they shall bring to you, but any small matter they shall decide themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. If you do this, God will direct you, you will be able to endure, and all this people also will go to their place in peace." (Exodus 18:21-23)
We see a similar list of qualifications in Deuteronomy.
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.' And you answered me, 'The thing that you have spoken is good for us to do.' So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and set them as heads over you, commanders of thousands, commanders of hundreds, commanders of fifties, commanders of tens, and officers, throughout your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, 'Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's. And the case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.'
Between just these two lists, we see that we are to seek out and support rulers who,
Fear God
Are trustworthy
Hates bribery
Are wise
Are understanding
Are experienced
Able to judge righteously between brothers
Able to judge righteously between a citizen and an immigrant
Able to judge impartially
Able to withstand intimidation
Note that one of the qualifications was not sinlessness. God does not call us to support perfect men exclusively, but he calls us to support men who meet these basic qualifications. So, we must answer this question. Does Donald Trump meet these qualifications? My answer is a resounding no. He does not come close to reaching this basic level of qualification.
The next question is this; can a Christian faithfully support a leader who does not meet civil leadership qualifications?
To help us reason through this question, consider if a Christian can faithfully support a proposed elder who does not meet the qualifications of eldership (1Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9)? If a congregation you were a member of brought two disqualified men before the church, would you feel justified in voting for either disqualified men? Even if one candidate was more disqualified than the other? Would you say, "well, no is perfect," or would you refuse to take part in raising an unqualified man to eldership in the Church of the living God? I believe the faithful position would be to refuse to vote for either and then protest both men based on ecclesiastical standards.
Likewise, I believe the faithful position is to refuse to vote for any unqualified man or woman according to God's civil standards.
Some will appeal to Daniel’s service to Nebuchadnezzar and Darius as proof for supporting unqualified men. This argument fails to make its case because Daniel never campaigned for or participated in placing either pagan ruler in power. Daniel never planted a Darius 486 BC sign outside his house, and he never had a say over which autocrat to serve. What he did was serve God faithfully according to his powers.
Covenanter Considerations
First, though I am not a Covenanter and do not hold their position, their position is worth consideration and discussion.
I recently read some comments that inferred or directly declared that it is "Reformed" to vote for a particular candidate or "not Reformed" to fail to vote for a specific candidate.
The Covenanters would disagree. The Covenanters are, perhaps, some of the most Reformed and staunchly Confessional Christians there are. As far as having Reformed "credentials" go, it's hard to beat them.
Covenanters do not vote in US elections. They refuse to vote in any US election because, according to them, they are endorsing the US Constitution, and they see the Constitution as a Godless document because it does not explicitly and adequately covenant with Jesus Christ. Essentially, they see political participation as a de facto political statement of faith; therefore, participation in a system that does not honor Christ is a declaration opposed to Christ.
This view has been a historical, Reformed, Presbyterian, Confessional, Covenanter view of voting for a few hundred years. These views came from the proto-Covenanter John Knox and his ideas on Christ as King over the civil magistrates. Again, I'm not a Covenanter, but I respect them and believe their ideas are worthy of being weighed. For more on their view, see here.
I depart from the Covenanter view because I believe that we are permitted to work within Godless systems. We are, however, called to work faithfully within those systems. While defending the idea of supporting bills of abortion abolition, I argue that voting for bills or candidates is not serving two masters and is scripturally acceptable. However, the Covenanters do make a strong case for the possibility of Covenantal sanctions if a nation does not abide faithfully to the Law/Word of God. Further, they make a strong case for the covenantal significance of voting within a representative society.
Covenantal Considerations
Our government is a representative democracy, and when we put our name down in favor of an elected official, we share in the representative burden of that decision. This burden is both real as a part of our democratic system, but also theologically. In Scripture, covenantal heads were the kings of their nations, but in a representative democracy, we share in that burden. However, the chief executive, the POTUS, shares a more significant responsibility, the people who actively participate in electing that POTUS also share in that covenantal responsibility.
It is essential to understand that we are not dealing with a monarchy in which who the rulers are is divorced from the people's desires. Instead, we live in a society where our say matters, albeit how much is up for debate—because of this, voting for a candidate carries with it covenantal implications. If our candidate wins, we share in the covenantal sanctions brought about by the administration. We are, by nature of our representative (or covenantal) participation, at least partially responsible. Unlike in monarchies or oligarchies, we cannot pass the buck and deny this responsibility. Presidents come to power because people vote for them.
We risk bringing about God's negative sanctions (curses) by voting for evil men instead of opposing them. I'm not convinced merely calling an evil man evil while participating in getting him elected is adequate to clean yourself from that possible covenantal judgment. Moreover, this judgment is not lessened when a candidate's wickedness is publically known, weighed, and dismissed as an adequate reason to withhold support.
An Admonition Before the Conclusion
The Kingdom of God is not really about who you vote for. Not ultimately.
The heart of the Kingdom is not politics. Politics isn't "off-limits" or worthless, but it is no replacement for genuine repentance. We should not dive into the ditch of a-political pietism, but we should also not dive into the ditch of political extremism in which politicians are spoken of in messianic terms. Likewise, we should steer away from the ditch that condemns a faithful brother for holding to a different voting philosophy.
As Rushdoony said, the Kingdom is built by regeneration and not by revolution. I think we can also say that the Kingdom is built by regeneration and not be political elections.
I can see and relate to believers who decide to vote for at least a few different candidates (namely third party candidates). I can empathize with their reasons, and there's no doubt in my mind that they're calling evil evil and calling good good.
I can disagree with their voting choices, even strongly, but sympathize with their rationale. I don't sympathize with idolatry and fanboying over wicked men and wicked women who hate God and only use God as a political prop. Voting one way or another doesn't necessarily mean you're compromised and failing to rely upon the Providence of God, but I condemn in no uncertain terms being an enthusiastic and unqualified partisan of a political party or particular politician.
We can make too little of politics and retreat into pietistic irrelevancy, but we can also make too much of politics and make it the test of orthodoxy when it doesn't deserve that spot of reverence.
Conclusion
The best argument for voting for Donald Trump is that we have the possibility of short term benefits (or at least a short term respite). Friends, that is not sufficient.
We must take the generational impact of both policies and culture into account. We have many reasons to believe that Trump has had a significant negative impact on our culture. Machismo is glorified as “telling it like it is” while the POTUS sets the example. We also have little reason to put our faith in any long term policy victories as long as we stubbornly continue to opt into the political cycle. At best any good four more years of Trump will bring is temporary. We cannot fix this political mess by continuing to play the "he's better than the next guy" game. It is impossible to look at the history of the last several elections and not see a clear moral and political trend. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are helping by continuing that trend.
We are also deluding ourselves if we believe we can make no significant difference. Conservative, church-going, evangelicals are a political force that may not be the largest or most powerful demographic, but it is a voting block that demands to be listened to. Thus far, we have decided to go along with the masses and not set ourselves apart. This decision is both a strategic and moral failing that continues every time a believer votes for a man who they know is unqualified.
Pragmatically, the Bride of Jesus Christ should reject Donald Trump.
Morally, we should be aware of God's qualifications regarding civil leadership. Though Joe Biden does not meet these qualifications, this does not give believers moral license to lower God's standards to accommodate another unqualified man. We must ask what our standard is and stand firm on that answer.
We are very prone to compare ourselves to one another. As sinful creatures, we have a desire to justify ourselves and make ourselves feel good about ourselves. Instead of comparing our sinful hearts to Jesus Christ, we choose to lower the bar to right under our own filthy works. We judge on a curve while God judges righteously. Likewise, when we consider our civil leaders, we are prone to compare them to one another instead of comparing them to God's standards. We judge on a curve instead of judging righteously. Or, perhaps, we judge rightly with our mouths but go and act contrary to that righteous judgment.
Much of Christendom fails to consider the covenantal implications of our actions. We should not follow that habit. In our current system, no matter how much we attempt to do so, we cannot ethically distance ourselves from the results of votes. Our votes, just like everything else, are not morally neutral. We must not chant together as theonomists that there is "no neutrality" to then only look at pragmatics when it comes to how we choose to represent ourselves politically. We cannot, and we must not. We risk judgment when we do this. Truthful criticism of the man who we vote for is excellent and helpful. Yet, it does not erase the covenantal reality that voters are partially responsible for those actions that demand criticism.
I do not want Joe Biden as my President. But no matter the fears, anxieties, or the potential hassle he may bring for me, my first duty is to honor God. For all the above-stated reasons, I will not be voting for Donald J. Trump.