Skip to main content

Are We Better Off Today Because Trump was Elected?

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the Trump/Hillary fiasco...I mean...election, it is appropriate that people have begun to reflect on the job that Trump has done.  Social media is marked by a wide variety of responses to this issue: some people think Trump has done all he promised and more (except for build that wall, of course, but not even most Trump supporters really thought he'd get a wall built), others think he has done nothing, and others still believe that Hillary would have accomplished so much more than Trump has.  You're bound to have these type of responses, but what troubles me is to see the numbers of Christians who are praising the job that Trump has done as if it is confirmation that they were right to vote for him.  "At least we didn't get Hillary," they sigh.  "Trump has been great for the economy," they insist.  "America is," they allege, "better off one year later because we didn't elect Hillary."

The question I want to answer is, "Are we better off today because Trump was elected?"  A question like, "Has Trump been successful?" is difficult to answer, especially at this point.  It is difficult to define success, and only time will truly tell the effects of his policies.  The short and overly-simplistic answer would be "Yes, we're better off."  In a shortsighted and carnal way Trump has been good for America, but that's not the approach I want to take.  Instead of looking at things like the particular policies Trump has implemented, the bills he has signed, and the officials he has appointed, I want to answer this question from a long-term, spiritually-minded viewpoint.   Statements like "Trump is bringing back jobs!" or "The economy is so much better under Trump!", while they may or may not be true (that really isn't my concern at this time), reveal the focus that lay behind so many votes this past election.  I believe that this attitude panders to the materialism and carnality that are latent in American Conservative Christianity today.  So, here are three things that are true under the Trump administration that I think would be the same under a Clinton administration.

1) We're still dependent on the government.  Both Hillary and Trump have the same basic view of the role that the Federal government should play in the lives of the states and individual citizens, and that role is far too intrusive and imposing.  To be fair, this would be the case no matter who was elected, whether it was Trump or Hillary, or if was mostly anyone else in either primary.  The two-party system exists to perpetuate the status quo of big government.  Uncle Sam will have suffer no rival!  True change from the Executive Office will require a drastic reduction of the authority/responsibility of that office, and of the Federal Government as a whole.  This is why Ron Paul, despite being learned and respectable, never had a shot at being nominated, to say nothing of actually winning the election.  He campaigned on promises of reducing the Federal Government and no one, neither the party nor the populace, was going to let that happen.  Our government is just as big as it ever was, and it's not going in the right direction.

2) We're still in debt.  Our economy is still debt-based.  Our currency continues to be devalued and we still play the same old financial games with our international friends.  The debt limit continues to rise as the idea of a balanced budget becomes more and more comical.  The Fed still exists and the IRS continues to extend its slimy hand.  Big bankers still rule the world, but now, instead of having politicians doing their bidding, we just have one of the bankers in office.  Trump has done little to demonstrate that his policies will significantly improve the status and integrity of the American financial system.

3) We're still immoral.  This is really the bottom line.  My primary objection to voting for Donald Trump was not his political ideology or executive experience, but his character.  When it comes to leadership, the Scriptures give far more weight to character than to charisma or political acumen. Donald Trump's many decades in the public eye have demonstrated that he lacks the character to be a good leader.  He might have the best tax plan in the world, and maybe his plan will be the panacea for what ails our healthcare system, but he has done and will do absolutely nothing to bring this nation closer to God.  For many people, even Christians, that is a positive.  "He's the president; not a pastor!" they cry, but there can be no neutrality.  Either our nation will glorify God or we will rebel against Him.  As a Christian it is my responsibility to vote for leaders who will draw this land back to faithfulness to the Creator.  I'm not just talking about voting for someone who has the right policies on social issues.  I'm talking about getting a leader into office who will actually stand up to the Washington pundits and lead honestly.  I'm talking about a President who would lead by example and show this nation what it means to live a righteous life.  Trump is not that President.  He might be a decent manager, but he is no true leader.

My idea of what constitutes a successful administration is, I admit, less than popular, even among Christians.  What deeply concerns me, however, is the value system that American Christianity reveals when it praises Trump's improvements to America.  Where is our treasure?  For what price will we sell our consciences?  Even if the median income in American rose by 10%, does that constitute a successful administration?  If healthcare costs were drastically reduced, does that make Trump a good president?  If the United States becomes an affluent moral cesspool, is that success?  Conversely, if we have made no progress on the three fronts listed above, are we really any better off?What do we want from our leaders?  What are our priorities?  What constitutes improvement?  Our answers to these questions reveal much about our worldview.  Personally, I refused to vote for a man as vile as Donald Trump.  He has done absolutely nothing to make me change my mind.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary