President Trump and Visions for America: Final Report from the Moderator, Harold Heie

MODERATOR REPORT ON THE COMPLETED TRUMP CONVERSATION: AGGREEMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, ADVICE FOR REPLICATING THIS EXPERIMENT

The complexities and nuances of our recently concluded conversation about “President Trump and Visions for America” are such that no two people will take-away the same set of conclusions. Therefore, what follows is my attempt to make coherent sense of it all. Although I draw deeply from the perspectives presented by all my conversation partners, I take full responsibility for the conclusions I present below.

I present my report in three sections: My perceptions of areas of agreement and disagreement that emerged from our series of conversations; my perception of questions that remain unanswered and beg for ongoing conversation; and my advice for those readers who wish to replicate this experiment in political discourse that draws heavily on what worked well and what did not work well (the beautiful and the ugly) in our conversation as well as my other past attempts to orchestrate respectful conversations among those Christians having strong disagreements. My ultimate hope is that the positive results that emerged from this conversation will inspire many readers to go out and do likewise in their respective spheres of influence.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

In the areas of agreement that I identify below, I do not claim unanimity on the part of my conversation partners (unless otherwise indicated), but I do claim “general consensus.”

Current Political Discourse is Broken

As one conversation partner (CP) put it: “We agree that the current state of politics is broken and partisan” (“in a poor state”).

An Antidote to Broken Political Discourse is Respectful Conversation

There was unanimity among all the CPs that despite a bump or two in the road along the way our conversations exemplified the “respectful conversation” that can be an antidote to broken political discourse: In the words of two CPs: “My favorite take-away [from our Trump conversation] is that we all value civil conversations and are thankful for the chance to have these conversations with one another”; “respectful conversation is valuable and worth the effort.”

Note the implication in the second reflection above that, as one CP later put it. “respectful conversation is hard work” (much harder than the easy work of vilifying those who disagree with you without seeking to adequately understand their contrary positions and their reasons they have for holding to those positions).

The Place to Start a Respectful conversation about Disagreements is to Get to Know the Person who Disagrees with You

The CPs expressed appreciation for all the foundational work that was done to build positive relationships of mutual understanding and trust before diving into expressing disagreements. This involved getting to know one another by giving reasons for wanting to be part of the conversation based on one’s personal story and indicating what one hoped to get out of the conversation. It also included agreeing to abide by stipulated guidelines for respectful conversation. One CP summarized this as follows: “The good initial team building provided a foundation for a sense of community and a safe space to explore ideas. The agreed rules for engagement pretty well ‘defanged’ everyone and comfort grew with each meeting. Trust developed over time and all seemed to enjoy the interchange.”

The Next Step in a Respectful conversation about Disagreements is to Listen Well Toward the Goal of Mutual Understanding

To point to the rarity of persons who disagree with one another really listening to each other, one CP observed that “it was good for me to actually listen to viewpoints I disagree with.” Imagine that; putting oneself in a position to actually listen to the person who disagrees with you.

A number of CPs point to the positive results of such “actual listening.” For starters, the experience of one CP was that by actually listening he came to see that those who disagree with him “feel as strongly about their beliefs as I do about mine.” As a result of this realization, he “learned” that he needed to “consider carefully the other side’s perspective on things.”

Another CP noted that as a result of such careful listening, his “compassion for those we conversed with” became “deeper”; which “increased” his “ability to love those who are different than me.”

Another CP noted that as a result of such careful listening, “my perspective is wider now.” He elaborates somewhat by adding that “when liberal leaning friends have spoken [to him] with bewilderment at conservative perspectives, I have a stronger grasp on why folks might hold that conservative position and am able to communicate that more clearly and with less disdain.” A positive result of this widening of perspectives is that, whereas in the past he has found it “difficult to find folks who disagree with you to sit down and talk/listen about the things we disagree about”; “now I feel that I know several people [his CPs in this conversation] I can continue to talk to when new things emerge in the news in order to continue my learning about ways to perceive the world that are different than mine.”

A common theme in the above reflections from CPs is that by means of careful listening, they attained greater understanding of the contrary positions taken by others and the reasons underlying these contrary positions. In the words of three CPs: “I think we heard from each other and came to understand each other’s rationale for varying positions better; “Through listening to Christians who support Trump, I can say I understand better where you are coming from and why, as a Christian, you approach the question of supporting Trump different from me, also a Christian”; “The single most important “take-away’ … is that we all experienced and saw a willingness from each other to truly listen and to try to understand each other’s perpsectives.”

What, then, is the point of such careful listening in the quest for better mutual understanding? One CP suggests that it is “not so much to persuade as to exercise our ability to see and hear from one another, particularly amidst our differences.” (we will return later to the issue of whether such careful listening actually changes minds).

It is time for me to insert two editorial comments. First, while the mutual understanding that should emerge from listening well certainly includes coming to understand the contrary position of the other, it must go beyond that to adequately understanding the reasons the other person has for his/her position. Such laying bare of underlying reasons for holding to particular beliefs will facilitate the quest for possibly finding some common ground in the midst of disagreements.

A second editorial comment is my belief that one must distinguish between weak and strong ways of listening. As I assert every chance that I get, a pre-condition for the possibility of respectful conversations about strong disagreements to uncover some common ground, or, at least, to illuminate the disagreements, is that the conversation partners embrace a rare combination of commitment and openness: A willingness to express one’s own beliefs with clarity and deep conviction (that is commitment); combined with a willingness to carefully listen to and give serious consideration to the contrary beliefs of others (that is openness).

Given that foundational belief on my part, a weak view of listening is to just be polite; to let the other person talk without giving serious consideration to the validity of what the other person is saying. In stark contrast, the strong view of listening that I call for involves a willingness to critically examine one’s own beliefs in light of the contrary beliefs of others; without attempting to predict beforehand the results of such self-examination – it could lead to a reinforcement of one’s own beliefs, or an enrichment of one’s beliefs. But it could also lead to correcting one’s present beliefs.

Was the listening that took place during our Trump conversation of the weak variety or the strong variety? One CP expressed concern that he too often settled for a weak version of listening: “too often, I think I have sacrificed my voice & views in favor of a false civility, being ‘nice’ in the interest of ‘peace.’ Prizing rationality on issues over truly expressing my values & convictions whether or not they seem ‘reasonable’ to others.” He suggests that he and the other CPs still “[struggle] with just how honest we can be about our convictions while maintaining … civility and personal respect.”

My frank assessment of our conversations is that that my CPs exhibited some of both weak and strong ways of listening.

It Appears that None of us Changed our Minds Regarding Public Policies

A number of CPs point to the lack of evidence that our conversations changed many minds, either in themselves or other CPs: “I have not changed my beliefs  about President Trump and the divide between what I perceive to be his vision for America and my vision for America remains”; “I don’t find that I changed my beliefs on President Trump or my vision for America as a result of our conversations. I’ve enjoyed our conversation, But I don’t find that any of the arguments I’ve heard in opposition to my positions are compelling enough for me to change my ideas.”

Another CP says that she “[doesn’t] know if any of us changed our minds about specific policies we support or don’t support,” adding that “at least I didn’t. While I understand better why those who support Trump support him and I have more respect for their reasons, my own lack of support for him or his policies is unchanged.”

Why were minds not changed? A number of other comments by CPs provide some hints.

First, one CP insightfully points out having “some very similar foundational beliefs and value convictions” can “take us in different directions politically” regarding public policy issues (for example, all of our CPs believe in the “end” of assisting the poor, while disagreeing about the role that government should, or should not take as “means” for accomplishing that “end”). As another CP put it, “”we agreed that our faith has implications for our citizenship, though the nature of those outcomes remain divergent.”

Another CP suggests that having a strong set of “core convictions” may militate against changing your mind. “I think my beliefs stem from core convictions I hold and were not likely to change during these conversations.” My own reflection about this suggestion is that we all need to be careful that our core convictions are not held on to so strongly that we succumb to a weak view of listening to the contrary core convictions of others that does not go beyond politeness. As indicated in the above section, I maintain that no matter how strong our core convictions may be, we need to be open to examining the adequacy of our convictions on the basis of seriously considering the contrary convictions of others.

Finally, another reason why not many, if any, minds were changed as a result of our conversation is that the moderator (me) was not adept enough at guiding the conversation in a way that may have changed some minds (more about that below).

A Number of CPs said “I Changed”

At the conclusion of this conversation, one CP asserted that “I don’t think I have changed.” But a few other CPs saw significant change in themselves.

One CP expressed this change most eloquently as follows: “I hope … that the biggest change brought about through this experiment has been in me. I still disagree with many of the policy positions of those who support Trump, … However, when we started, I not only disagreed, but I was disagreeable. I know I am still disagreeable at times, but I hope I have become less disagreeable, or at least that I am becoming less disagreeable. Though this process, I have been able to see more clearly my own contribution to the winners/losers, point-scoring approach to politics that I believe is a loss to everyone in that it harms community and discourages compromise and collaboration.”

Other CPs expressed similar views about how they changed. What one CP learned about himself was that “I can disagree respectfully, and have good, spirited debate with people I have very little in common with politically.”

Another CP reported that as a result of these conversations, “my compassion for those I conversed with is deeper.” He came to a fuller realization that “those who I disagree with are my neighbors and these conversations are have increased my capacity to listen, desire to understand, and ability to love those who are different than me.”

Another CP noted that these conversations changed him in developing his “habit of curiosity and listening.”

Another CP insightfully pointed out that what he learned about himself was that he needed to avoid putting those who disagreed with him into neat categorical boxes: “The change I perceive most in myself is the importance of not slipping into using those comfortable labels to categorize someone who starts using phrases that signal a direction that I might disagree with.” He then points all of us to an alternative approach that is central to this entire experiment: “Rather than assuming I already know what they’re going to say, I need to hold back, listen, and ask follow up questions.”

My Perception of the Other CPs Changed

One CP expressed most eloquently a change that he perceived took place during our experiment as to how the CP’s viewed each other: “One thing that I feel has emerged from this [conversation], but I want to be careful not to speak for the group, is that I think we all see each other as part of the same ‘Christian family.’ Like, …, I think some of us feel like really distantly related cousins, but I think we see in one another a genuine love of Christ and an authentic desire to follow Jesus. And really, I’m not sure I could want more that that from a conversation. To be able to see one another as co-citizens of the kingdom of God is a great conclusion to any conversation if you ask me.”

Another CP said the following about how her perception of the other CPs changed; calling this change “transformational”: “To change from not knowing someone or not knowing them well, and in that lack of knowledge resorting to generalizing and stereotyping and then to conclude our experiment with more knowledge of seven others whose distinct viewpoints we have worked to hear and respect is a compelling transformation.”

I do not have empirical evidence to support the assertion that all the CPs left this conversation agreeing with this observation that their views of the other CPs changed,. But my intuitive sense is that this was the case. Whereas there may have been some initial suspicions that those who disagreed with me politically were inferior Christians, that feeling was eventually dispelled. It eventually became apparent to everyone that we all aspired to be faithful follower of Jesus. Our disagreements were about how best to do that in the political realm.

To the extent that this intuitive perception of mine is accurate, its importance cannot be overstated. It is only when we come to see each other as aspiring to be faithful followers of Jesus that there is any hope that we can eventually sort through our disagreements as to how best to follow Jesus (by means of ongoing respectful conversations).

The “Means” President Trump Has Chosen for Doing Politics Violate Christian Teachings

There is unanimity among all the CPs that the means President Trump has chosen to seek to accomplish his political ends are problematic. Witness the following reflections from CPs: “I think the biggest area of agreement that we found was that nobody was extremely happy with all the tactics that Donald Trump uses as President”; “Trump has dismayed even those of us who support him with some of his words, deeds, and tweets”; “Trump’s rude and disrespecting communication is not acceptable and is not a Christian virtue.”

Two CPs express their concerns about President Trump in terms of his not being a good role model: “We agree that President Trump’s style is no role model to emulate”; “We seem to agree that President Trump is not a positive role model when it comes to moral character or decency.”

One CP elaborates on some of the “unchristian means” that President Trump uses to work toward accomplishment of his desired ends: “vulgar language, rude behavior, belittling opponents.”

But here comes a significant point of contention. While agreeing that President Trump’s means for doing politics do not measure up to Christian standards, the CPs do not agree on the extent to which that shortcoming should or should not matter. In the words of one CP: “we disagree about the degree to which that [his faults relative to “moral character and decency”] matters in the presidency” I now turn to this issue as the first of two major areas of disagreement that emerged in our conversation.

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

Should President Trump’s Unchristian Means for Doing Politics Matter?

One’s answer to this question depends on one’s position as to the relationship between means and ends in politics.

My own belief is that the accomplishment of a good end does not justify an evil means. Therefore, even if one believes that some or all of President Trumps desired ends comport with Christian values (e.g., his wish to appoint conservative anti-abortion justices who will seek to overturn Roe Vs. Wade); that end which is perceived as good does not justify using unchristian tactics to work toward its accomplishment. This fits with my understanding of the biblical teaching, which I grant sounds outrageously unrealistic, that “evil is to be overcome with good” (Romans 12;21).

But the idealism that I express above may be too simple in light of the complexity that exists when casting a vote for a given candidate for the Office of President. For when I entered the voting booth in November of 2016, I was presented with a choice as to who to vote for: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, a third party candidate; or a write-in candidate (as a semi-humorous aside, a friend of mine actually voted for me to become President in one election; I forget which).

The obvious fact that we were presented with alternatives when voting for President in 2016 was captured in the following way by one of our CPs: “Some of us think that because Trump is (fill in the blank) he should not be president. Some of us think that even though Trump is a (fill in the  blank with the same word); he’s still better than the alternative.”

So, here is the way in which I make sense of the Trump supporters among our CPs voting to Trump in 2016 despite their beliefs that his way of doing politics is unchristian: the alternative of voting for Hillary was unacceptable because she would also choose some unchristian means for doing politics and would advocate for some political “ends” that are antithetical to the Christian faith (e.g., abortion on demand up to birth), and the ends and means she would choose are more problematic from a Christian perspective than the ends and means that candidate Trump would choose. From this perspective, President Trump’s unchristian means for doing politics matter, but that legitimate concern is overridden by greater concern about what are believed to be “more unchristian” ends and means that the other candidate (Hillary Clinton) would pursue if elected.

That this conjecture on my part may have validity is suggested by the following view expressed by one of our CPs who is a Trump supporter: “If I as a Christian cannot vote for Trump because of this [essentially, his character flaws], who do I vote for? Do I vote for a Democratic candidate who promotes the killing of the most innocent [by supporting abortion on demand]?”

So, where does all of this leave us? It leaves us with the recognition that there can be situations in life, as when in a voting booth, where we have no choice but to choose what we perceive to be the “best bad option” (what ethicists call choosing what we perceive to be the “lesser of evils”).

Our CPs disagreed about the comparative severity of perceived departures from Christian norms on the part of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, which suggests the need for further conversation.

Do President Trump’s Policy Goals (Ends) Comport with Christian Teachings?

A second major area of disagreement among our CPs was about whether the political ends sought by President Trump for domestic and international policies are consistent with Christian teachings. Although these disagreements were always below the surface, I erred in my role as moderator by not orchestrating in-depth conversations about these disagreements. Allow me to explain.

I start with a reflection by one of my CPs that “it would have suited the purposes of conversing about Donald Trump a little more if instead of the broad topics we ended up discussing, we could have found some specific policies that have been enacted and discussed those.” A similar suggestion from another CP was that we need to “well define the topic and require the conversation to be related to the topic,” adding that we need to “require participants to clearly define their position on the topic.”

Another way to express this concern, said by another CP was that “my own preference would be to go deeper more often.”

A concrete example of this lack of depth was provided by another CP relative to our conversations about abortion: She regrets that we didn’t “expand the conversation” by contrasting the views of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: “Since Hillary Clinton is an ardent abortion advocate, her contrast with Donald Trump, the most Pro-Life President ever, is relevant.”

With these reflections as background, here is where I believe I erred in my role as moderator from the very beginning of our conversation. The two initial leading questions that I posed were “What is our vision for the future of America?” and “To what extent do you believe President Trump is facilitating, or not, the accomplishment of your vision for the future of America?” In retrospect, I believe these questions were too broad. I should have posed some more specific leading questions about particular policy goals (ends) that President Trump was implementing and their congruence, or not, with Christian teachings. That would have led to the in-depth conversations about specific policies that we never got to.

So, while I know that our CPs had major disagreements about policies, we never got around to discussing these disagreements in-depth, which I regret. Later in this report, I will suggest some possible ways to remedy that deficit for those readers interested in replicating our experiment in their local settings.

SOME MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS BEGGING FOR FURTHER CONVERSATION

My fondest hope for all the respectful conversations I have initiated, both online and face-to-face (as in my Trump conversation), is that they are only a beginning; not an ending. Since my CPs for my Trump conversation have developed some good friendships based on a significant degree of mutual understanding and trust, my dream is that they will continue to talk to one another now that our Trump conversation is officially completed.

Since the responses to leading questions already posed often beget new questions (so many questions, so little time), there is still so much to talk about regarding the Trump presidency from a Christian perspective, even beyond the two questions posed above to which CPs gave differing responses. I will now propose some further unanswered questions.

As you will soon see, in sharp contrast to the view of one of my CPs that “our conversation was too theological,” I believe that our conversation was not theological enough.

Is Sin Personal, Structural, or Both?

I came away from my conversation with the impression that some of my CPs believe that sin is strictly personal; the things I do or say that are affront to God. I certainly believe in this personal dimension of sin. But there is also a broader structural element of sin, practices initiated by sinful human beings that inhere in societal structures; which are also an affront to God. An obvious example is the sin that was inherent in the institution of slavery in America, the remnants of which continue to plague us.

What is the Scope of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

One’s view on whether sin has a structural as well as a personal dimension will inevitably inform one’s view as to the intended scope of the “good news” of the gospel of Jesus Christ. My broad view of the scope of sin leads me to a broad view of the purposes of God. In addition to desiring that individual persons be saved; God wishes to redeem all of the created order; including sinful societal structures. The biblical teaching that most informs this belief of mine is Colossians 1:20 – “And through him [Jesus Christ], God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven …”

It is important to note how what I have just asserted comports with my understanding of eschatology (the “end times”). Not being a theologian, I do not have the competence to sort through the differing views as to the nature of the “end times.” My partial understanding is that  the “kingdom of God” was indeed inaugurated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and will be fully realized at the end times (in ways that I do not comprehend and about which respectable Christian theologians disagree), But in the meantime, Christians are called to plant “tiny seeds of redemption” during their earthly pilgrimages (Matthew 13:31-32).

This is not to suggest that the full realization of God’s redemptive purposes at the “end times” is ultimately dependent on what we Christians do on earth (although I do view myself as “partnering with God”). But it does suggest that our callings while here on earth are to provide intimations of that eventual full realization, analogous to the way in which a morning sunrise hints at the eventual full noonday sun. And I see the various ways in which I seek to provide such intimations as special cases of my aspiring to “love God and to love my neighbor as myself.”

Now, all of the above may seem like “theological obfuscation” to the reader. Not so! I will now seek to demonstrate, by means of posing some additional questions, how your responses to these initial theological questions will have a profound influence on how Christians should do politics and your view of how President Trump is doing in light of Christian teachings.

What is the Relationship Between the Calling for Christians to Address the needs of the Poor and Marginalized in Society and the Possible Role of Government in Addressing Such Needs?

In my estimation this is the most important question that remained unanswered at the end of our conversation. And, as you will soon see, this challenging question will beget a few thorny sub-questions.

As already hinted at, all of our CPs expressed belief in the “end” of assisting the poor and marginalized in society, but significant disagreements remained as the best “means” for accomplishing that good end.

Before addressing that disagreement, it is important to note a biblical basis for a Christian calling to assist the poor and marginalized in society, portrayed in the teaching of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25, that those who will “inherent the kingdom” are those who give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, welcome to the stranger,  clothing to the naked, care for the sick and visitation to the prisoner. But Matthew 25 is silent as to the best “means” for caring for the “least of these,” and it is that silence as to “means” that leads to significant disagreements among Christians.

I believe it is fair to say that in our conversation, those CPs who supported President Trump expressed the view that Christians should express such love for others by means of their own charity and the charity of Christian churches and other Christian organizations rather than expecting government to play a role.

In contrast, those CPs who were not supporters of President Trump embraced a more expansive view of the role of government as including assisting the poor and marginalized in society, in  addition to, not in place of  private Christian charity.

This contrast leads me to pose the following sub-question: Are the needs of the poor and marginalized in our society too extensive to be met by means of private charity?

My own personal response to this sub-question, which I do not attribute to any of my CPs, is that the needs of the poor and marginalized in our society are too great to be met solely by means of private charity. For example, there are many Americans who are born into such extreme poverty that they are not able to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” They need assistance in the form of food stamps and other welfare programs. But I could be wrong about that. More conversation is needed

A possible rejoinder to my response to this sub-question is that in practice, many attempts at providing such public assistance have been ill-conceived, involving “handouts” without expectations for taking personal initiatives that can eventually overcome total dependency on such handouts (e.g., availing oneself of job training possibilities).

It is such ill-conceived welfare practices that give credence to the concern expressed by one theorist that “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for [to pay taxes toward providing public assistance] without receiving.”  To the extent that current welfare practices legitimate this concern my response is that steps then need to be taken to develop public assistance programs that provide the temporary assistance needed in a way that helps recipients to fare better in our market economy. The second sub-question this leads to is: What should be the elements of a welfare program that best provides the assistance needed to help recipients become flourishing members of society? More conversation is needed.

A second possible rejoinder to my claim that there is a proper role for government in providing public assistance for those in dire need is that my basing this claim on the teaching of Jesus recorded in Matthew 25 may indeed  be compelling to those who profess to be followers of Jesus, but those who hold to other religious or secular worldviews may not share this teaching of Jesus. This leads to a third sub-question: Is the call to address the needs of the poor and marginalized in society just a Christian calling; or is it a calling to be embraced by all human beings?

My response to this third sub-question, which, once again, I do not attribute to all my CPs,  is that the call to care for those in dire need is not just a “Christian calling.” It is a “human calling.” That will take some explanation.

The challenge is to create a proper balance between two foci that are good, unless taken to extremes that preclude the second focus; the focus on being a unique individual and being a member of one or more communities. Drawing on the words of the Declaration of Independence that Americans ought to have certain “unalienable rights,” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” the tendency in America has been to focus on the pursuit of these rights as individuals, without adequately taking into account that we are also social beings; members of one or more communities, who. I argue, on the basis of my commitment to the teachings of Matthew 25, ought to be caring for one another. But the idea that we are social beings who ought to care for one another is not just a Christian teaching. I believe that the need to care for one another reflects an important aspect of our shared humanity.

Is Abortion Always Wrong?

One of our CPs emphatically took the position that “abortion is always wrong”: “Because being ‘successful’ always ends the life of a unique human being created in the image of God, abortion is always wrong.”

Did all the other CPs agree? It depends on who you ask. One other CP said: “We spoke a lot about abortion, and I think we came to some basic frameworks about this topic, but I don’t think we found much agreement on the parameters of when (if) an abortion is justified.” I agree with this second CP.” Let me explain.

I believe it is fair to say that all of our CPs were pro-life (from the fetus to the end of life). Therefore, no CP argued for any from of “abortion on demand.” But I don’t think we settled the question of whether there are ever any extraordinary circumstances of what ethicists call “tragic moral choice,” where all the options that are available are destructive in some way, and one must choose what is judged to be the “best of all of the destructive options” (what ethicists call the “lesser of evils”).

We did discuss one such possible example of tragic moral choice relative to abortion, the case of “saving the fetus or saving the mother.” What should be done when a sound medical diagnosis is that if the fetus is not aborted, the mother will surely die?

The CP who holds that “abortion is always wrong” had a response that I believe was novel to all the other CPs: The doctors should take every possible step to save the mother; even if an unintended consequence is that the fetus “will die,” and this “letting die” is not abortion since it does not involve taking a proactive step to “kill the fetus.”

This explanation seemed to satisfy the other CPs, but that was not discussed. But, even if this is an adequate explanation (which would require further conversation), there are other possible cases of tragic moral choice relative to abortion that were not addressed at all. For example, what choice should be made if a sound medical diagnosis was that allowing the pregnancy to continue would almost certainly lead to a complete mental breakdown for the mother?

Therefore, in conclusion, it is my judgement that we did not exhaust the question of when (if at all) an abortion may be justified as an example of tragic moral choice. I believe that more conversation is called for.

Should Christians be Skeptical About or Oppose the Authority of Government?

One of our CPs points to this question when he asserts that “While I believe [the] existence [of government] makes sense, I think Christians should remain skeptical of and often in opposition to the authority of governments and the actions governments take.” He basis his skepticism or opposition on his belief that “our expectations of governments to behave within a Christian perspective [is not] a realistic expectation,” a belief that he sensed “at least some” of the other CPs agreed with.

Of course, this is a foundational question with which all the CPs and all Christian readers of this report need to answer for themselves. I will now present my response.

There is an important distinction to be made between being “skeptical” of the authority of government and being in “opposition” to the authority of government. I will first address the opposition position.

I reject the opposition position in light of the teaching in Romans 13 that governmental authority has been instituted by God and, therefore, Christians should be “subject to the governing authorities” (vs. 1), with an important qualification: If there is a conflict between what government ordains and what I understand to be what God ordains, I must choose the latter.

But aren’t the actual workings of government broken, marred by sin, in a way that is contrary to what God ordains? For the most part, yes. However, given my view that God wishes to redeem all of the created order, including the political realm, my response to this political brokenness is to seek to plant tiny seeds of redemption, entrusting the harvest to God.

In my attempts to plant tiny seeds of redemption in the political realm, I make a distinction between the “process” of doing politics and the possible “results” of that process.

My views about a process for doing politics that comport with Christian values in based on a foundational premise that has been the basis for my face-to-face trump conversation and all of my online attempts over the past nine years to orchestrate respectful conversations among Christians who have strong disagreements:

Jesus has called all his followers to love their neighbors. Providing someone who disagrees with you a safe and welcoming space to express that disagreement and then talking respectfully about your disagreement is a deep expression of love.

A corollary of my foundational premise is “You don’t love someone who you have silenced.”

My foundational premise is the basis for the “conversational model” for doing politics that I present in my book Reforming American Politics: A Christian Perspective on Moving Past Conflict to Conversation.

In summary form, my proposed conversational model begs for bipartisanship; where politicians on both sides of the political aisle engage one another in respectful conversation about their agreements and disagreements toward the goal of finding sufficient common ground to inform bipartisan legislation regarding the policy issue at hand (and I never tire in pointing out that this bipartisan approach was actually used by a bipartisan “gang of eight” U. S. Senators in 2013 to formulate a bill on comprehensive immigration reform that combined a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants with respect for the rule of law evidenced by the inclusion of appropriate fines (therefore, not amnesty) along this pathway to citizenship. Alas, this bill died in the House of Representatives).

It is because of my commitment to the conversational model for doing politics that I caucused for Amy Klobuchar in the Democratic Iowa Caucus on February 3, 2020 in light of the primary approach she said she would take if elected President: “I will gather people together to try to find common ground instead of scorched earth”; an approach that she has put into action as a U. S. Senator by reaching across the isle to orchestrate many bipartisan legislative bills.

I must now address forthrightly the potential criticism that for Christians my proposed conversational model for doing politics will unavoidably require “compromising” Christian teachings.

The essence of this criticism is that the bipartisan approach to doing politics that I propose will probably not lead to all the resulting legislation that I believe is called for by my understanding of Christian values. That is true.

But to say “it’s my way or the highway” (hyper-partisanship at its worst) is to guarantee the political deadlock that will ensure that you get nothing that comports with your understanding of Christian values; and something is better than nothing.

Now, it is settling for something that comports with Christian values rather than everything you believe Christian values call for that is viewed by some Christians as a “compromise” of Christian teachings. I believe that is true only if you believe that the “other half of the loaf” that the politician on the other side of the aisle got by means of bipartisan conversation was clearly a contradiction of Christian teachings, which I maintain is generally not the case. Therefore, a Christian doing politics may have to settle for a legislative result that is “relatively good” from a Christian perspective because by the very nature of bipartisan political discourse, the “perfect” is unrealizable (as is sometimes said, “the good can be the victim of the perfect”).

Notice that my above summary of the contours of the bipartisan political process that is central to my proposed conversational model for political discourse allows for (even possibly calls for) a healthy dose of “skepticism” about the extent to which legislative results will comport with Christian values because of the rampant hyper-partisanship of contemporary political discourse. I concede that. But that does not in the least negate my deep conviction that the political process I outline comports well with Christian values, since if gives deep expression to an often ignored and violated form of extending love to me neighbor to which Jesus has called me and all who claim to be his followers. As a Christian called to plant tiny seeds of redemption in the political realm, I must seek to be faithful to that loving process, entrusting the results to God.

To What Extent, If at All, Did Our Trump Conversation Model the Conversational Approach to Doing Politics that I have Proposed?

It was my dream that the Trump conversation that I moderated would effectively model the efficacy of the conversational model for doing politics that I have proposed. The jury is still out as to the extent to which that was accomplished.

Since we never got around to talking enough about the adequacies or inadequacies, of President Trump’s policy goals (ends) from a Christian perspective, partially, at least, because of some problems in my framing of leading questions, we did not uncover much bipartisan common ground relative to legislative policies, with the potential for one minor exception that we didn’t have time to explore further.

This potential minor exception was pointed to by one of our CPs in his reflection on the chapter on immigration (7) in my Reforming American Politics book, where I reported on how two conversation partners in my online conversation that led to this book who had strong initial disagreements about immigration policy eventually found some common ground in labeling as “reasonable” a proposal for comprehensive immigration reform that included both punishment for entering the country illegally (in the form of fines) and a pathway to citizenship. In the words of this CP, “The immigration chapter in Harold’s book revealed for me much greater common ground for a partial solution – optimistic now.” If we had the time to discuss this observation further, it may have lent support to the focus on seeking bipartisan legislation that is central to my conversational model for doing politics.

But, as described in the “Areas of Agreement” section above, we did uncover very significant  common ground relative to the nature of the respectful conversation process that must be the foundation for then seeking common ground relative to policies. I like to think that if our CPs could continue their conversations after we completed this Trump conversation, some common ground relative to polices would emerge. If my CPs continue talking to one another in an informal manner this could happen. Time will tell. But, in the meantime, I conclude this report with a section on how the lessons learned from what worked well and what did not work well in our Trump conversation can help readers of this report who may be inspired to replicate a conversation about contentious political issues in their various spheres of influence.

SOME ADVICE FOR GOING OUT AND DOING LIKEWISE

In their responses to end-game questions at the end of our conversation, the CPs had some good suggestions for improving the conversation process we used that could be helpful to other small groups who may wish to replicate a conversation about the Trump presidency or any other contentious issue, political or otherwise, in their local settings. Four words of advice stood out.

Great Care Must be Taken in Formulating Leading Questions

As I have already reported, I erred in the very beginning by formulating two initial leading questions that were too broad (What is your vision for the future of America? To what extent do you believe President Trump is facilitating, or not, the accomplishment of your vision for the future of America?).

Future groups wishing to replicate a conversation about the Trump presidency should formulate more sharply focused leading questions (e. g. what is your assessment of President Trump’s immigration policy?), possibly calling on some  outside expertise in formulating such questions (as I did in my online conversations when I solicited the services of consultants to help me formulate leading questions).

The Moderator Needs to Have a Loud Whistle

Although our conversations were by and large very respectful, there were a few bumps in the road. As one CP said, “The ground rules [for respectful conversation] are good, but I’m not sure we lived into them as well as we might have.”

In fact, although there were eleven official sessions for our conversation, we had a twelfth improvised session to re-group; during which there were some apologies for lack of respect and we all reaffirmed our need to do better to abide by the agreed upon guidelines for respectful conversation.

As Moderator, I take responsibility for that bump in the road. As suggested by one CP, I should have been a “referee with a very loud whistle,” While acknowledging that the Moderator (me) set a “gracious tone,” he went on to suggest that I could have “coupled [that tone] with higher fences to keep the conversation corralled and moving to a preset place.”

Another CP, who had apologized for some lack of respect during our improvised twelfth session. suggested that I could have been “more ‘aggressive’ as moderator about stopping comments/conversation any time they veered away from or violated the rules for respectful conversation we all agreed to.”

Both of these CPs are absolutely correct. Interestingly, at one point when I did not “blow a loud whistle,” one of these two CPs compensated for my deficiency by gently reminding all the CPs of their common commitment to abide by the agreed upon rules for conversation. That was a splendid example of the CPs holding each other accountable.

You Can “Go Deeper” by Having Paired Conversations, the Results of Which are Reported Back to the Entire Group

A number of CPs suggested, in differing ways, that our conversation could have gone “deeper” if, rather than always meeting as a group of eight CPs, we had orchestrated some two-CP conversations where just two people try to understand each other’s differing positions about a given leading question for the purpose of seeking some common ground; then reporting the results of their conversation back to the entire group (possibly using the novel strategy of expecting each  CP to articulate to the larger group the other CP’s position to the satisfaction of that other CP, to demonstrate that adequate understanding was attained).

I think this idea should be seriously considered by groups wishing to replicate our experiment for a reason that harkens back to a significant difference in the results that emerged from my online conversations about contentious issues and the results that emerged from this face-to-face conversation. I will attempt to explain.

In the online conversations on my website, the typical procedure was for just two CPs to seek to sort out differing views about a given leading question by means of three postings over a one-month period. This procedure led to the uncovering of some significant common ground (more than we reached in our face-to-face Trump conversation). It seems that when a group is expanded to as many as eight people, the cacophony of differing views makes it more difficult to identify areas of agreement.

If this procedure is used, the hope is that after the paired CPs have reported back to the larger group, a foundation will have been laid that will make it easier for the entire group to identify some common ground.

In Responding to Leading Questions, CPs Should Read from Written Statements

I close this section on advice for local small groups wishing to replicate our experiment with what may appear to be a relatively minor word of advice, but is nevertheless important; a word of advice that again harkens back to a difference in how I orchestrated my online conversations and how I orchestrated this face-to-face Trump conversation.

In my online conversations, my CPs had no choice but to commit their responses to leading questions to writing (for posting on my website). In my face-to-face Trump conversation, I allowed CPs to speak extemporaneously or from sketchy notes. That was a mistake. It led to too much “off-the-top-of-the-head” ad-libbing. Prior to a given session, each CP should be expected to commit his/her response to a posed leading question to writing, with that written response to be sent to all the other CPs prior to the session to give everyone time to think about that response before the session.

PENULTIMATE CONCLUSION: SINCE QUESTIONS BEGET FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE NEED TO KEEP TALKING

According to my count, we ended our conversation with eleven unanswered questions (presented above). Why didn’t we just start with those. As already noted, part of my response is that I started with two leading questions that were too broad. But there is a more fundamental reason.

No matter what leading questions you begin with, the conversation that ensues will inevitably beget new questions that reflect the particular interests and commitments of the conversation partners. So, there really is no end to the conversation.

The fact that there is no end to the conversation about complex political issues is not to be disparaged. There always is hope that some common ground will emerge (as it did in our conversation; witness the “Areas of Agreement” noted above). But even if that doesn’t materialize, engaging in respectful conversations about strong disagreements is a deep expression of love. Loving others is always the right thing to do.

GRAND CONCLUSION: WE DID CREATE A SAFE AND WELCOMING SPACE

One of our CPs had a long personal history of being demonized and vilified for her conservative views about abortion (“Abortion is always wrong”). Given that painful history, my heart was warmed when I read her reflection about our conversation: “I have appreciated how those in this conversation group who disagree with me have done so civilly. That is rare and wonderful and contrary to my experience with newspaper columns and letters to the editor as well as Facebook conversations.” Another CP expressed a similar sentiment when he said “It is rare to play in a playground like this.”

So, my grand conclusion is that although our bold experiment was far from perfect, we did create something that is extremely rare these days in our polarized society characterized too often by a tribalistic us-versus-them mentality. We successfully created a safe and welcoming space to express and talk respectfully about disagreements. That is no small accomplishment. Thanks be to God and to my conversation partners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 11- Transcript

Session 11 – Transcript

Full Transcription of Responses to End Game Questions

End Game Question 1:  What areas of agreement, if any, emerged from our conversations?

LN 1:  Areas of agreement: To be civil; to be respectful; to take fair turns without grandstanding (mostly).  I observed that all wanted the very best for country, culture and Christianity. One person’s style was contrarian but all saw how it was being harnessed to make a point – in this group it worked fine but would probably be counter-productive in many venues.  This group shared most potentially divisive features such as ethnicity, religion and educational experience – that made us easy to like and cooperate with.

MK 1: That respectful conversation is valuable, and is worth the effort.

LS 1: That Trump’s rude and disrespecting communication is not acceptable and is not a Christian virtue.

SE 1: I think I have found agreement with others as it relates to pro-life.  I think we may disagree on some core things still, but I have found that I agree with others concerning the tragedy of abortion and the desire for mothers to feel safe and cared for enough to feel good about keeping their child.

 

I think I found agreement with others as it relates to Trump’s unChristian-like behavior and that perhaps with at least some folks I have found agreement regarding our expectations of governments to behave within a Christian perspective not being a realistic expectation of our government.

 

TM 1: I think the biggest area of agreement that we found was that nobody is extremely happy with all the tactics that Donald Trump uses as president.  At one time or another, I believe all of us who support him have said something to the effect of, “as much as I like him, he needs to take a step back from all the tweeting.”  Those who are opposed to Trump, obviously, weren’t going to agree with his tactics.

TA 1: I think we agree the current state of politics is broken and partisan. (We might disagree about the effect of that on the average citizen because an ineffective government approximates in some ways a small government, and we disagree about the size and scope of government.) We also agree that civility in politics and political discourse is in a poor state, although we also agree that it’s been this bad or worse at other times in our history. (That is, it’s probably not “worse than it’s ever been.”)

We seem to agree that President Trump is not a positive role model when it comes to moral character or decency (but we disagree about the degree to which that matters in the presidency).

BE 1: 1. Because not all of us attended every meeting, I might be incorrect that ALL of us agree on the following items. I’m focusing on three areas that matter immensely to me. I trust others will add the areas of agreement that matter most to them rather than all of us attempting to include every area of agreement.

A. Because “successful” abortion always ends the life of a unique human being created in God’s image, abortion is always wrong. There is not one square inch, including the womb, of which God does not declare, “Mine.”

B. Trump has dismayed even those of us who support him by some of his words, deeds, and tweets.

C. It is valuable to meet and discuss with people whose perspectives differ greatly from mine.

KN 1: I think we agreed that our faith has implications for our citizenship, though the nature of those outcomes remain divergent. For example, our common affirmation of God’s gift of life expresses itself in differing and deeply held policy priorities regarding abortion, war, etc. Similarly, I think we have some basic differences, not so much about the legitimacy of borders and national interests in a multi-national world, but what those borders should mean for Christians who are called to love neighbor (even outside our borders) as we love ourselves. We agree that President Trump’s style is no role model to emulate.

End Game Question 2: What major areas of disagreement still remain?

LN 2: Disagreements:  The degree to which we were willing to put faith into action.  I think for all faith informed our positions but the level of engagement differed widely. I observed 3 approaches – 1) faith and politics separate 2) culture indicates relevance & method and 3) Christianity transforms culture.  Maybe not disagreements but different levels of engagement. 

MK 2: Some of us think that because Trump is a (fill in the blank) he should not be president. Some of us think that even though Trump is a (fill in the blank with the same word), he’s still better than the alternative.

LS 2: As no non-Trump member has brought any disagreement with Trump’s policies there hasn’t been any areas to agree or disagree.

SE 2: I think I probably remain an outsider to the conversation around the function of government.  While I believe it’s existence makes sense, I think Christian’s should remain skeptical of and often in opposition to the authority of governments and the actions governments take.

I also think my theology differs so greatly from others in the group, that my perspective on the Bible, sin, and salvation often leads me into a position that is drastically different than others in the group.

TM 2: I’m not entirely sure we found much to actually agree on.  We spoke a lot about abortion, and I think we came to some basic frameworks about that topic, but I don’t think we found much agreement on the parameters of when (if) an abortion is justified.  I don’t believe we see eye to eye on the state of the economy, or the legitimacy of the current impeachment debate.

TA 2: I don’t know if any of us changed our minds about specific policies we support or don’t support—at least I didn’t. While I understand better why those who support Trump support him and I have more respect for their reasons, my own lack of support for him or his policies is unchanged.

BE 2: Disagreements:

A. Trump is the only Presidential candidate a Christian can support. All 20+of the original 2020 Democratic candidates and all of those remaining support abortion strongly, as well as having taxpayer dollars fund it. Abortion kills one million Americans annually as well as an estimated 42 million unborn babies worldwide. No human being is more poor, helpless, needy, or at risk than an unborn baby. No other issue compares in importance.

B. God created two sexes, male and female. Any person of whom the doctor declared at birth “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” is male or female, respectively, regardless of his or her feeling otherwise. To add additional “genders” disregards biology as well as the Bible.

KN 2: Regarding policy positions, I don’t think we’ve come to much agreement at all, but ironically, I think we’ve seen that some very similar foundational beliefs and value convictions take us in differing directions politically. For example, Loren and I may agree quite a bit about the constitutional role of SCOTUS yet disagree about what the lines of “legislating from the bench” may be vs. interpreting the constitution.

End Game Question 3: What changes, if any, emerged in your beliefs about “President Trump and Visions for America” as a result of our conversations?

LN 3: Changed beliefs: Two things 1)  The immigration chapter in Harold’s book revealed for me much greater common ground for a partial solution — optimistic now, and 2)  studying the strict constructionist vs  culturally adaptive practice of interpreting founding documents pushed me farther onto the strictness platform as the only way to preserve core values with integrity.

MK 3: I’ve learned that I need to consider carefully the other side’s perspective on things because they feel as strongly about their views as I do about mine. Good people have a different perspective than I do. Even though I feel like I’ve done that, I haven’t seen my thinking shift too much on various policies.

LS 3: None, there were no actual disagreements brought by non-Trump supports to the conversation related to Trump.

SE 3: I think my beliefs stem from core convictions I hold and were not likely to change during these conversations.

TM 3: I don’t find that I changed my beliefs on President Trump or my vision for America as a result of our conversations.  I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but I don’t find that any of the arguments I’ve heard in opposition to my positions are compelling enough for me to change my ideas.

TA 3: I have not changed my beliefs about President Trump, and the divide between what I perceive to be his vision for America and my vision for America remains.

BE 3: I don’t think I have changed.

KN3: It’s hard to admit it, but hearing from people I have come to know about their reasons for supporting President Trump has humanized him somewhat for me; made him more of a person who actually does represent the interests of others somewhat, rather than just a rogue caricature, a social media creation. My conversation partners have led me to take him more seriously.

End Game Question 4: What changes, if any, emerged in your perceptions, of those conversation partners who generally disagreed with you about how well President Trump is facilitating, or not, your vision for America?

LN 4: Perceptions of partners:  The good initial team building meeting provided a foundation for a sense of community and a safe space to explore ideas.  The agreed rules of engagement pretty well “defanged” everyone and comfort grew with each meeting.  Trust developed over time and all seemed to enjoy the interchange.

MK 4: My perceptions, coming in, were already favorable to those in the group who think different than I do. It was good to listen to well-reasoned and at times, emotional, responses, recognizing the passion and intensity of belief/feeling. The change I perceive most in myself is the importance of not slipping into using those comfortable labels to categorize someone who starts using phrases that signal a direction I might disagree with. Rather than assuming I already know what they’re going to say, I need to hold back, listen, and ask follow up questions.

LS 4: Hard to answer as I didn’t know any of the conversation partners or their views prior to our conversation so I didn’t have any perceptions.

SE 4: I think my perspective is wider now.  When liberal leaning friends have spoken with bewilderment at conservative perspectives, I feel like I have a stronger grasp on why folks might hold that conservative position and am able to communicate that more clearly and with less disdain.

I think my compassion for those we conversed with is deeper.  I want to be someone who loves my neighbor. Those who I disagree with are my neighbor and these conversations have increased my capacity to listen, desire to understand, and ability to love those who are different than me.

One thing that I feel like has emerged from this, but I want to be careful not to speak for the group, is that I think we all see each other as part of the same “Christian family”.  Like…I think some of us feel like really distantly related cousins, but I think we see in one another a genuine love of Christ and an authentic desire to follow Jesus. And really, I’m not sure I could want more than that from a conversation.  To be able to see one another as co-citizens of the kingdom of God is a great conclusion to any conversation if you ask me.

TM 4: I found that I can disagree respectfully, and have good, spirited debate with people that I have very little in common with politically, so I’m glad for that.  I think going into this, I expected intelligent people who see the world in a different way than I do, and that seems to have been born out.  I’ve always been one to be willing to leave tension where it exists, so I’m OK with that.  I’ve never harbored ill will toward those with whom I disagree.  I don’t think that’s healthy.

TA 4: I admire my conversation partners’ passion and depth of knowledge—both those I disagree with as well as those I agree with. I knew KN and SE before we started, so I already admired KN’s passion for reconciliation among God’s diverse creatures and creation, and I admired SE’s passion for creating space for the marginalized and his eagerness for engaging with anyone, including those he disagrees with. As I got to know the rest of you, I came to admire TM’s logical mind, calm demeanor and inviting sense of humor; BE’s passion for the unborn;  LS’s knowledge of Scripture and the Belgic Confession; LN’s fair-mindedness and lawyerly authority on questions about the Supreme Court; and MK’s political middle-ness and wise cautions about wielding the power of language.

All that said, I hope—although it may be less apparent to my conversation partners than to me—that the biggest change brought about through this experiment has been in me. I still disagree with many of the policy positions of those who support Trump, and I disagree with their reasons for supporting him. However, when we started, I not only disagreed, but I was disagreeable. I know I am still disagreeable at times, but I hope I have become less disagreeable, or at least that I am becoming less disagreeable. Through this process, I was able to see more clearly my own contribution to the winners/losers, point-scoring approach to politics that I believe is a loss for everyone in that it harms community and discourages compromise and collaboration. I am committed to being more aware of that in myself and resisting the temptation to participate in debate-style conversation that only serves to further entrench both sides.

BE 4: A perception that was confirmed was that those conversation partners who disapprove of President Trump, even when acknowledging his actions with which they agree, would still qualify that approval with criticism of Trump or his motives. Also, I expected those who disagree with me to rely on feelings rather than facts. This happened repeatedly when discussing abortion: “How would you FEEL if the pregnant woman were your wife/sister/daughter?” or “How would you FEEL if the father were a rapist/relative/abuser?” Those hard situations never change the FACT that abortion is always wrong because of what it is.

KN4: I think we heard from each other and came to understand each other’s rationale for varying positions better. I think we somewhat experienced how such a conversation can be civil, but I think we’ve still struggled with just how honest we can be about our convictions while maintaining the civility and personal respect.

End Game Question 5: What, if anything, did you find to be profitable, from your participation in our conversations?

LN 5: Profitable:  I was re-energized to continue conversations with diverse viewpoints, not getting stuck in the same tribe every time. Diversity adds flavor to the blend of opinions and beliefs. The common law judicial system believes that truth is found by contest, each side strongly supporting their view, within set rules of evidence, and the jury of peers making the decision.  Not a bad way to do business. Sorry for the aside.

MK 5: See #4. Plus realizing that this is a lot of work! We spent almost an entire session talking about how we should do this! What luxury to have that kind of time and space just to lay some ground rules for future dialogue. It’s rare, indeed, to play in a playground like this.

LS 5: Was good for me to have to actual listen to viewpoints that I disagree with and to respond in a respectful manner.

SE 5: It is difficult to find folks you disagree with that are willing to sit down and talk/listen about the things we disagree about.  Now I feel like I know several people I can continue to talk to when new things emerge in the news in order to continue my learning about ways of perceiving the world that are different than mine.

I also think I learned a lot about other perspectives which has sparked so much curiosity in me.  This curiosity has spilled over into other settings and I have found myself asking all sorts of people why they think what they do.  These conversations have developed that habit of staying curious and listening, which I find to be very profitable.

TM 5: I think it was good to talk to people with whom I disagree, in a constructive way.  It’s always good practice to employ civility in these conversations.  I think too, it is helpful to listen to how other people think about things, and that goes for everyone in the conversation group.  I’m always interested in hearing what people have to say, even when I disagree and I hope to learn something from everyone, and I believe I have.

TA 5: I learned so much from this experiment and each of you. Especially as we head into another election year, I was convicted to do more political homework to be able to back up the ways I feel about candidates with concrete evidence of their histories, character, worldviews and policy ideas. I have been disheartened by evangelicals’ support of Trump and the effect of that support on the broader Christian witness in the world. But through listening to Christians who support Trump, I can say I understand better where you are coming from and why, as a Christian, you approach the question of supporting Trump different from me, also a Christian.

BE 5: I have spoken and written against abortion for over 30 years. I have appreciated how those in this conversation group who disagree with me have done so civilly. That is rare and wonderful and contrary to my experiences with newspaper columns and letters to the editor, as well as Facebook conversations. I must add that I expected gracious interaction because of Harold’s expectations and guidance and based upon already knowing several group members.

KN 5: It was very profitable, but more as an exercise in civil discourse than in building consensus. Even the deep disagreements that temper my naïve hope that good conversation can cover all ills is, I think, profitable in that it grounds such attempts better, makes them more realistic. I think my conviction is deeper that the point of this is not so much to persuade as to exercise our ability to see and hear from one another, particularly amidst our differences.

I’m very thankful for my weekly Friday lunch dates with Harold where often we process our interactions here. Similarly, Tamara and I have had two or three very clarifying conversations while we’ve been on this journey. In some ways it feels unfaithful to our “bi-partisan” commitment to “caucus” with those I identify with most.  Is it retreating into likeminded silos or figuring out how to engage our respectful conversations better? I’m not sure, but I know it’s been very helpful to me to get clearer about what I feel and think is going on for me in these conversations.

End Game Question 6: What, if anything, did you find to be unprofitable, from your participation in our conversations?

LN 6:  Towards the end of our sessions we began to re-plough old ground.  Maybe a wider range of topics or shorter time frame (but then the ease of exchange might not have developed).

MK 6: I wouldn’t use the word “unprofitable.” That implies it had no worth. It all did. I think higher fences (or, to use a different metaphor, a referee with a very loud whistle) would have helped us cover more ground.

LS  6: That we spent little to no time discussion actual disagreements with Trumps policies.  Any discussion about policies was related to the difference between Republican and Democrat philosophies and ideas.  The non-Trump participants were not able to communicate any clear areas of policy dislikes but were instead very philosophical with no concrete positions or ideas.

SE 6: I exposed myself as a dangerous anarchist and now I’ll never pull off burning a building down without all of you assuming it was me.

TM 6: Combining 6 and 7 a little bit, I believe it would have suited the purposes of conversing about Donald Trump a little more if instead of the broad topics that we ended up discussing, we could have found some specific policies that have been enacted and discussed those.  We spent a lot of time (or so it felt to me) discussing theology (not that that’s a bad thing) and deep in the weeds on some other topics that, while productive, did not particularly seem to hit the heart of what I thought I was getting into, discussing my opinions and beliefs about Donald Trump.

TA 6: I don’t think trying to limit ourselves to talking just about Trump via policy agreements/disagreements was necessarily unprofitable, but I think it was minimally profitable. I feel like one of the things we proved was that just limiting conversation to policies, without also allowing for and validating personal stories and experiences as well as emotions, led to conversations and perceptions of one another that weren’t holistic. It enabled us—perhaps to the detriment of our potential relationships and deeper understanding—to remain at a more surface-level of conversation. We regularly had the chance to “say my piece,” which feels satisfying. But I wonder how many of us also felt at times, “I wasn’t really heard/understood.”

BE 6: I found it frustrating when feelings “trumped” facts. See above regarding abortion. Another example was the assertion repeated at several meetings that Trump deserves impeachment, but no evidence was given of impeachable behavior.

KN 6:  I recognize a freedom there of feeling a bit closer to understanding and being understood than I often feel in our conversations here where I’m more likely to feel frustrated and bewildered following. It’s common for me to attribute such anxious confusion to the differing positions we’re trying to engage, but my conversation with Tamara yesterday clarified and confirmed that I have not succeeded very well at our initial commitment to both express my convictions, respecting myself, as well as I’ve tried to listen respectfully. Too often, I think I have sacrificed my voice & views in favor of a false civility, being “nice” in the interest of “peace,” prizing rationality on issues over truly expressing my values & convictions whether or not they seem “reasonable” to others. I don’t need much help in choosing a shamed “civil” silence; compliance and conflict avoidance may have been the most important unspoken commandments in my family and culture.

End Game Question 7: If you decided to facilitate a similar conversation among a new set of conversation partners, how would you structure such a conversation (drawing on your responses to the above questions)?

LN 7: Suggestions for structure.  I would start exactly where we left off.  Maybe more written preparation.  I do better work when I need to write something. I liked the circle without tables – exposed, vulnerable and need to trust are developed. No hiding, of self or beliefs – in the open. I liked the format of looking for something I agreed with first, and then something I did not agree with – discernment required. Created Balance. I wonder what effect a group of 6 or of 10 would do to the dynamic?  I would do 6 before 10.  Better control of rules of engagement.

MK 7: I would try very hard to have the same gracious tone Harold set with this one, coupled with higher fences to keep the conversation corralled and moving to a preset place.

On that note: Thank you Harold, for all the time and thought you put into this, for bringing us along on this unique journey, and for making this possible. I have no doubt that you just multiplied your efforts eight-fold.

LS 7: Well define the topic and require the conversations to be related to the topic.  Require participants to clearly define their position on the topic.

SE 7: I love the way this was structured.  I think my own preference would be to go deeper more often.  I think this could be achieved by having less people. One idea I am curious about is pairing people up to have a one-on-one conversation that goes 2 hours and then they come back to the larger group once a month and have to explain the other person’s perspective.  It would allow for people to get to know each other better, hear perspectives and have a chance to flesh that out with questions, and would demand a level of listening that results in being able to explain a perspective that is not our own.

I think this would set an end goal around understanding and not necessarily in seeking areas of agreement.  Though, I would not be surprised if that happened.

TM 7: Combining 6 and 7 a little bit, I believe it would have suited the purposes of conversing about Donald Trump a little more if instead of the broad topics that we ended up discussing, we could have found some specific policies that have been enacted and discussed those.  We spent a lot of time (or so it felt to me) discussing theology (not that that’s a bad thing) and deep in the weeds on some other topics that, while productive, did not particularly seem to hit the heart of what I thought I was getting into, discussing my opinions and beliefs about Donald Trump.

TA 7: I think it was valuable to try a face-to-face version of the conversations Harold has facilitated via his website. If I decided to facilitate a similar conversation in the future, here are some things I might do:

 

  • Although it adds to the time commitment, I might require (or strongly encourage) that each of the conversation partners meet one-on-one with everyone else in the group at some point during the span of the experiment for coffee, over a meal or whatever. Those one-on-ones wouldn’t have to involve talk about the conversation topics, but they could. They could also simply be a chance for the conversation partners to get to know one another better.
  • Related to that, while we’ve gotten to know one another better over these many weeks, I wonder how it would work if the original recruits were 2 Trump supporters and 2 non-supporters and then each of them were asked to invite an “opposite” they knew. I feel like inviting an “opposite” who I already know and care about being in relationship with would increase the stakes in a positive way, and one take-away from the experiment might be deeper understanding between two friends of opposite political persuasion.
  • If I were facilitating/moderating such a conversation, I would try to be as wise and gracious as Harold. I would also try to be more “aggressive” as moderator about stopping comments/conversation any time they veered away from or violated the rules for respectful conversation we all agreed to. I know I should have been called out more times than I was J. I’ll be honest and admit I don’t know if I’m quick-thinking enough to carry off such careful moderation of a conversation in progress. That’s why, if I were moderating such conversations, I think I’d do better moderating written convos like those Harold has done via his website.
  • I’ve come to believe that you can’t really have a respectful conversation without intentionally trying to nurture care and respect for the person you’re conversing with. Thus, I might add something like this to a facilitated conversation like ours: After a person, let’s say Tim, shared his response to an assigned question like those we answered in turns, I might take a moment to go around the circle and ask each of the others to answer these questions:

 

1) What did TM’s’ response tell you about him and what he values?

2) Did that foster any new appreciation for TM or TM’s insights; if so, share that.

I feel like in our insistence to stay focused on the issues rather than on each other, we may have missed some opportunities for further understanding and appreciation of one another 

BE 7: I think I benefitted most when we each came with a prepared statement and each partner could read those online afterwards when preparing responses. I would follow that example. In addition, I would expand the conversation, if discussing a President, for example, by comparing and contrasting the victor with the challenger. Since Hillary Clinton is an ardent abortion advocate, her contrast with Donald Trump, the most Pro-Life President ever, is relevant. Since every current Democratic Presidential candidate supports abortion, how can any consistent Christian caucus for any of them?

KN 7: Structural Suggestions:

But there are some dynamics in this group that I wish we had better addressed throughout to make a better attempt at it together.

 

  • I wish we had worked more on hearing each others’ stories and values, the convictions that shape us, than our focus on the issues themselves. I think our first meeting built a good base, but as we’ve settled into sharing our “views” on “issues” it’s skewed the field away from our hearts to our heads. I think both are important, but I think we have overdone rationality at the cost of hearing our deeper values.
  • I think we have too easily strayed into “us & them” talk, disparaging other views rather than exercising curiosity about them, and that has contributed to an “on-guard” carefulness for me about what is safe and not safe to share.  I wish we’d revisited our foundational commitments more often, and worked at checking each other on it when we seemed to be crossing a line. But I think that’s largely uncharted territory. In something I was reading this morning I wrote in the margin, “The biggest lie is to disparage one another’s humanity, and in so doing to lose our own.” The ground rules are good, but I’m not sure that we lived into them as well as we might have. It became easier to try to focus on our differing views on the issues. I’m not sure if this represents truly differing approaches to “process” vs. “outcomes”, “means” vs. “ends,” or if it’s just easier for many of us to take that path, even though we realize it’s what is increasing the polarization in our society. I believe we really need another way, but it’s so different that it may require more structure and discipline.
  • I realized that convening this conversation around our reactions to Donald Trump, while clarifying, skews the conversation from the start. I think we would agree that, regardless of whether we tend to support or critique him, he is not “middle of the road” in most any way. Thus, some of the same “fault lines” (for lack of a better term) show up in our discussion, both in content and style of representation. I think to have a better respectful conversation requires us to “try on” each other’s perspectives, to some extent. I think we heard without fighting, but I think we’re a ways from actually reasoning and feeling together. And Donald Trump is certainly no model for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Session 7 – Transcript

SESSION 7 – TRANSCRIPT

Full transcription of Session 7

Leading Questions:

F. FOR GENERAL SUPPORTERS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: Identify one initiative President Trump has taken for which you agree with his “goal” (“end”), clearly stating your reasons for your agreement in terms of your Christian beliefs.

G. How would you describe the way President Trump is “doing politics” (his “means” for seeking to accomplish his “political goals”)? Are his “means” consistent with your understanding of Christian values? If not, do you believe his “means” are justified because they lead to “ends” that you believe are consistent with Christian values?

 

TM QUESTION F

I think Trump’s economic plans have done us a great service as far as the economy and people’s lives are concerned.  I’ve been banging this drum, but as the economy builds to full employment, opportunity abounds, and people can find the kind of work that moves them.  One of the things I’ve learned in my career is that there are plenty of people who actually like working with their hands.  I like to joke that God didn’t engineer my hands for physical labor, but there are a lot of people who feel the opposite, that they love to get into the physical, the dirty, moving things, driving forklifts, etc etc.  These people don’t want an office job.  I believe there are a lot of trades that won’t be eliminated by robots, and I don’t think they should be.

Cutting taxes is, in my estimation, the second best stimulus that we could have, noting that my preferred economic model, eliminating Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, isn’t politically viable.  I’m not in love with the trade war, but if you look at what the tariffs hit, China is putting a tariff on raw materials, food, and feed stock, whereas our tariffs hit finished, manufactured goods.  This seems to be hitting the Chinese economy harder than our own.  From CNBC, China’s economy grew by 6% in the 3rd quarter, which is the slowest in 27.5 years.  Again, I don’t love the trade war, and I’m not sure it’s as easy to win as Trump predicted, but he has hit Beijing in the place that they understand the most, their economy.

LN QUESTION F

I support President Trump’s Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) appointment initiative. Early in the campaign he declared that he would appoint strict constructionist judges, selecting SCOTUS justices from a disclosed list.  He has kept that promise. How often are campaign promises kept?

A strict constructionist is someone whose interpretation is based on the actual words and plain meaning of the Constitution itself, with practical applications to modern life, as opposed to so called “dynamic interpretation,” which allows judges to create or assume rights and meanings never intended by the founders but preferred by cultural progressives.

I am focusing on the newly “discovered” rights of personal privacy, personal autonomy, personal choice, the right to be left alone (Thurgood Marshall, pornography case – Stanley v. Georgia) and more: “The process of implausibly stretching the Constitution beyond recognition reached its zenith in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where progressive Justices dared to declare that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (F. LaGard Smith, Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 9,No. 1, 2019, p.7).

These creative, high sounding phrases have no existence in reality, but form the shaky foundation for all of the new rights being discovered by progressive judges in deference to current cultural preferences.

You have already heard my suggestion that the Legislature’s failure to govern by reflecting the will of the people has been supplanted by an overreaching Executive Branch (both parties) and progressive courts. Conservative legal scholars suggest that the only way to re-establish the original harmony/tension between the branches is to reassert the original bedrock of a fixed starting point at the Constitution.  President Trump is attempting to do just that, intentionally and uncompromisingly.

The pivotal point in this judicial appointment battleground occurred in July, 1987 when then President Reagan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the SCOTUS. This appointment came as no surprise.  Senator Edward Kennedy on the day of the announcement declared in caucus that the party must defeat him (Bork) by whatever means and at whatever cost or all is lost – our social agenda will be forever doomed, and Kennedy proceeded to bash Bork as a person, as a jurist and as an ideologue – all without honest substance. Ever since SCOTUS appointments have been dirty, messy political assassinations – going both ways.  SHAME.

As a Christian, I cannot presume to declare that I myself am the fountain of all truth—that I am free to define myself, my world and my eternal meaning in subjective terms as I see fit and to vary those pronouncements from time to time as I might find convenient or personally gratifying.  NO, I find myself defined and described best in Scripture which tells me that I am created a little lower than the angels in my Creator’s image, BUT have sinned both by my federal representative Adam and personally every day all day so that I need a sinless Savior who is revealed to me in that same Holy Writ—Namely one Lord Jesus Christ.

I reject the agenda of cultural progressivism and the judges and justices who promote and protect it. And I applaud President Trump for his appointments to SCOTUS.

 

KN QUESTION F

It’s not really the question, but I feel it’s important to acknowledge credit where it’s due. President Trump seemed to be a collaborative leader in his support for criminal justice reform in the sentencing of non-violent offenders – a very important societal issue, and one that I’m still not clear about his rationale for supporting it since the growth of privatized prison system and “lock them up” seem more consistent with his rhetoric and values. But other than that, there is very little that I would agree with, either in substance, method, or style.

So there are several “initiatives” for me to choose from, but I think the biggest one must be his stance against any measures that would address climate change. His goal/end would seem to be to accelerate, rather than impede in any way, the plundering of our planet’s natural resources to satisfy the profit motive of any who can do so. I’d like to grant it as ignorant and somewhat innocent disregard/disbelief in what he so arrogantly declares as the “fake news” of science, but I think it’s more than that. I think he actively chooses short-term riches over the long-term sustainability of life on this planet. I don’t know what he actually believes about climate change – what’s more clear is that he doesn’t care to know or, even more, to lead in a way that would do anything about it. In such a global leadership role, on an issue of such importance for the whole planet, and with such consensus between nations and in the scientific community that it must be addressed – his stance goes way beyond an innocent difference of opinion to blatant disregard for future generations.

My Christian faith calls for stewardship of the bountiful resources God has blessed us with in His creation, and consideration of the needs of my neighbor near and far away. I realize that some Christians believe the natural order is bound for destruction, and some actually welcome such demise as a hastening of that outcome. I was raised in a tradition that often took that position. But I have come to question that, believing in God’s renewal of a new earth as well as a new heaven. And I think that’s the essence of my comment last time that I think eschatology is largely a distraction from what is right in front of us and our God-given responsibility to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with our God and what He has entrusted to us. I am far from feeling that I have done my best part in environmental consciousness and action, but I don’t want to look away from it, and I think the world needs leaders who will help us to organize to do more together than we could do alone. The world is already at-risk, and Donald Trump is taking us backward rather than forward.

 

BE QUESTION F

“All children—born and unborn—are created in the holy image of God.”

Those wise, winsome words spoken by President Donald Trump express why I can and must continue to support him as President of the United States of America. No previous President has consistently supported the right to life of unborn babies. No current candidate of any political party has campaigned on the unequivocal right to life from conception on except President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has also done more to protect the right to life of unborn babies than any previous President, whether Democrat or Republican. I will list and explain 10 of his top pro-life achievements.

First, President Trump has cut, by up to 60 million dollars, federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, by its own accounting, kills over 300,000 unborn babies annually. Since Planned Parenthood donates millions of dollars to Democrats, cutting federal funding helps keep my tax dollars from murdering unborn babies and from supporting the Democratic Party, which is basically a blood money laundering machine for Planned Parenthood.

Second, President Trump has appointed, so far, two possibly pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. While I’m not convinced either of the new justices is completely pro-life, Hilary Clinton and the current Democratic candidates would appoint only pro-abortion Supreme Court justices.

Third, President Trump has issued new regulations for Title X funding. As a result, Planned Parenthood has withdrawn rather than comply. This has allowed these redirected federal funds to help health care centers that do not do abortions.

Fourth, President Trump has stopped our tax dollars from going to abortion-providing organizations overseas. According to the World Health Organization, the number of unborn babies killed annually by abortion is around 40-50 million. Trump’s action keeps our tax dollars from contributing to the slaughter.

Fifth, President Trump has defunded the United Nations Population Fund, known as the UNFPA because it formerly went by the name United Nations Fund for Population Activities. A very popular “population activity” the UNFPA funds is abortion. Thus, defunding the UNFPA keeps American tax dollars from, you guessed it, paying for abortions abroad.

Sixth, President Trump has required health insurance companies to disclose if they include coverage for abortion. That allows consumers to avoid helping fund abortion through the insurance  premiums they pay.

Seventh, Trump has trumped every other President when it comes to nominating and getting confirmed his choices for federal judges in his first year. And as of August 2019, Trump has had 152 judges confirmed for lifetime seats in our courts, with another 40 nominees who are awaiting approval. Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are appalled that some of these judges actually believe, correctly, that our Constitution protects life from conception until natural death. Unlike death-dealing Democrats, I am delighted at this.

Eighth, Trump has established at the Department of Health and Human Services a new office for conscience protection. This can prevent doctors and other health professionals from being forced to perform or to assist in  performing abortions. A doctor should care about the Hippocratic Oath, which says “First, do no harm.” Since abortion harms society in general, the affected families in particular, and unborn babies especially, this new provision is wonderful and welcome news.

Ninth, President Trump has allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds. Medicaid, which helps poor people, should not spend our taxpayers’ money to hurt the poorest of the poor: unborn babies.

Tenth, Trump has cancelled a huge contract for taxpayer-funded experimentation with body parts of aborted babies. The research was often conducted by the National Institute of Health and has occurred at universities across the country. The University of California, San Francisco, for example, has been conducting research with the body parts of aborted babies for 30 years. Those researchers out-Frankenstein Dr. Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s classic horror story in their grisly procurement and use of body parts. Planned Parenthood employees have been videotaped discussing how to obtain body parts while performing abortions.

Closer to home, President Trump’s consistent, unequivocal support for life from conception until natural death has inspired pro-life proponents to pass legislation like Iowa’s Heartbeat Bill, which outlawed abortion when a heartbeat can be detected, around 6-7 weeks after conception. And the more Constitution-keeping judges President Trump gets to appoint, the more such laws will stand, rather than being overturned by pro-abortion kangaroo courts.

I believe that Christians must support the right to life from conception until natural death. The Bible says that God created human beings in His image. The Bible values human life so much that the first murderer, Cain, was punished severely for killing Abel. Psalm 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” This verse says God Himself causes each and every conception. Consequently, how can Christians do anything else except abhor abortion and do everything in their power to abolish abortion?

MK QUESTION F

Religious Freedom

I like limited government.

I like freedom to worship as I feel called by God to do.

The two are intertwined in a symbiotic relationship.

The founders of our country said that limited government is possible because of the virtue that comes from religion. The constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion, but prohibited the establishment of a state religion. Other countries have gone the route of a state religion, and it has not ended well.

This arrangement of limited government and freedom of religion has produced a good balance between religion and state, that lets citizens follow their allegiance to God, while also obeying earthly authorities. The moral constraints brought about by an active, protected faith kept the populace mostly lawful, enabling the state to focus on bigger issues.

Families, churches, congregations all exercise moral constraint which is what allows us to have limited government. Because we can govern ourselves from within, we don’t need to be governed from without. Freedom of religion is an absolutely essential component of maintaining limited government.

Conversely, the encroachment of government—i.e., government becoming less limited—is directly linked to a people straying from Biblical truth and an understanding that certain freedoms are not granted by the government, but are protected by the government. As we become less and less sure of who we are as people created in God’s image, and more and more confused about Who we belong to, we look to others—often government—to be our source of identity and the one who provides all we need.

As sure and night follows day, government will expand to fill the void and take over more and more of a people’s daily affairs. Eventually, the cycle will be complete and the government will even try to regulate who, what and/or when a people may worship. Once that happens, it will be difficult or nearly impossible for a people to experience self-regulating morality that allows for limited government once again. Government will need to be much more pervasive as it assumes more and more of the role that God and self-regulating morality used to take care of.

Now, no longer able to be ruled from within, people without the freedom—or desire—to worship God, will need to be ruled from without.

Whether Trump sees the issue this way or not I do not know, but I do know that the freedom to worship is not a freedom for the government to grant. It is a freedom for the government to protect. Trump has taken steps to do that, both here and abroad, and I applaud him for it. Not only is it right from a religious perspective, but it is what our constitutional founders wanted.

 

LS QUESTION F

As I have stated before I feel that the most important and one of few mandates that God gives to any government is to protect its citizens.  I feel that Trump has done more to accomplish this mandate than any recent president.  This applies to not just to un-born children but also helping people get of government assistance, fight drug addiction, restoring the rule of law making our country safer by arresting MS-13 gage members, keeping us out of wars.

In the Belgic Confession Article 36 it says “We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose, He has invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers and for the protection of them that do well.

Here are just some of the pro-life accomplishments of the President and his Administration.

 

  • President Trump fulfilled his campaign pledge to only appoint pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court when he appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He has likewise placed another 180 (and counting!) prolife, conservative federal judges on the Circuit and District courts — more than any other President has done at this point in his term.
  • President Trump has deprived the abortion industry of billions of dollars. He signed legislation to permit the states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X family planning. He also issued an Executive Order to give states the option to withhold Medicaid and other federal money from organizations that perform abortions, including Planned Parenthood. He also enacted the Protect Life Rule, cutting federal funding of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry under the Title X program.
  • President Trump changed the rules regarding federal funding of research, indicating that body parts of children killed by abortion should not be used.
  • President Trump reinstated and expanded the “Mexico City Policy.” His new policy ensures that our tax dollars are protected from funding the abortion industry overseas across ALL global health spending, not just family planning dollars. The Bush-era Mexico City Policy protected roughly $500 million in spending – the new Trump policy protects over $8.8 billion overseas aide from funding abortion. He also stopped funding the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).
  • President Trump changed the rules regarding federal funding of research, indicating that body parts of children killed by abortion should not be used.
  • The Trump Administration Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) issued a rule requiring that insurers specify to their customers whether the plan they are buying covers abortion. The administration also requested input on how to better enforce the limited abortion provisions contained in Obamacare.
  • The President created a new office in the federal government for Conscience and Religious Freedom, so that people who, for example, are being forced to participate in abortion, can have their rights vindicated more effectively.
  • President Trump has protected numerous employers from the Obama “HHS Mandate” that was forcing them to cover abortion-inducing drugs in the health insurance plans they offer their employees.
  • The President has made numerous appointments, across the federal administration, of strong pro-life advocates, starting with Vice-President Mike Pence. Most of the many others he has appointed do not make the headlines, but they are making and implementing policies and practices that advance the pro-life agenda. For instance, in the Department of Health and Human Services, the strategy memo makes it clear that “human beings” include babies in the womb.
  • The President has pushed hard for Congress to pass additional pro-life legislation, like the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, as well as the full removal of funding from Planned Parenthood. He has promised to sign both bills. There is much more that can be said, including how the President encourages the movement by speaking in plain terms about the abortion issue, rather than in vague abstractions. Moreover, the President and Vice-President have attended and spoken at various pro-life events (including the March for Life) and hosted receptions for prolife leaders.

 

TA QUESTION F

I disagree with Trump’s attempts to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act includes ideas and policies that were at one time Republican ideas, but Obama Derangement Syndrome became so pervasive in the Republican party that they shamelessly claimed up was down, black was white, and healthcare can be accessible and affordable for anyone who needs it without requiring that everyone have health insurance. Trump has perpetuated these lies and disparaged and damaged the affordable care act, despite its proven successes—including coverage of preexisting conditions and allowance for young adults to remain on parents’ policies.

I believe the Affordable Care Act was a step in a right direction (there may be other, unexplored right directions). I think the original design of it—that we would all help each other afford health care by all agreeing to purchase health insurance is almost biblical in the way it mimics our call as Christians to unselfishly share one another’s burdens. I disagree with Trump’s attempts to undo it without replacing it with something similar or better, and it seems clear to me that his claims he knows how to replace it with something better are nothing more than brazen, self-serving lies. (As a Christian, I also disagree with brazen, self-serving lying.) 

 

SE QUESTION F

I have serious problems with President Trump’s actions on immigration.

 

  1. Trump’s usage of defense budget funds to build a border wall without Congressional approval is an egregious overreach of executive power that has potential for wide negative impact.  Neither party wants the opposite party controlling a White House that can get money from wherever it wants to do whatever they want. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-08/trump-s-use-of-pentagon-money-for-border-wall-threatens-defense
  2. The border wall is ineffective and a waste of resources. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-says-walls-work-its-much-more-complicated
  3. The detention centers are inhumane. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/the-inhumane-conditions-at-migrant-detention-camps.html
  4. The Muslim ban on travel is an unAmerican policy and is stoking hatred toward our Muslim neighbors. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-muslim-ban-doesn-t-just-target-eight-countries-ncna868971
  5. Our rejection of asylum seekers, detention of asylum seekers, and reduction of refugee acceptance is a stain upon America’s identity. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-refugees.html

 

All the way back in Deuteronomy (10:19), God tells God’s people to welcome the stranger in the land and reminds the Hebrew people that they were once strangers in Egypt seeking food during a famine (Genesis 47).  I think this example is incredibly powerful, because I think we have set the current refugee and immigrant need as low in comparison to the atrocities seen in Nazi Germany.  But Egypt welcomed Joseph’s family (Israel) simply because they were hungry.

The biblical reminder to love the alien and offer hospitality to the stranger is seen throughout the entire biblical text.  The author of Hebrews (13:1-3) tells us that when we welcome strangers we might be entertaining angels.  It is a powerful thought.

I agree with others who have stated in previous conversations that the biblical mandate to love our neighbor and care for the alien is not a mandate for the government but for the person who loves God and seeks after Jesus.  But if there is a policy that troubles me it is one that degrades at my ability to love well.  The positions Trump holds toward immigrants and the actions his administration has taken against immigrants and refugees is, in my view, an anti-Christian approach toward the neighbor.

 

TM QUESTION G

I don’t think that Donald Trump has done politics in a way that most of our political class is happy with.  As far as I’m concerned, he can interact with congress in any way he wishes, short of anything illegal or unethical.  It’s no different from working at your place of employment, if you don’t follow the handbook you’re liable to get fired, but short of that, if you’re difficult to work with, you probably get what you deserve in your employment.  I have worked with a number of people who are difficult, and I know it’s not fun.  Personally, I wish he was more collaborative, but I know that’s not why he was elected.

Honestly, Trump was a giant middle finger to the DC class, so if you’re expecting him to be pleasant or even normal to work with, that’s not the mandate he received.  He was sent as a change agent, and he has definitely hit that note.  I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be much different in style quite honestly.  He probably would have fit better into the DC mold than Trump does, but their messages are not that much different in all reality.

 

LN QUESTION G

I have mixed reactions to the way President Trump is pursuing his policies and goals as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He has governed in a style far more open but heavy handed than his predecessors.  Within the Beltway there is continuing disbelief that he has not yet come to heel as he “should”.  I find this refreshing but a little unnerving when I wonder what will happen next, Then I realize that I also expect him to behave in a certain way as if I own the process.  Our expectations seem to control our judgment of others.  We measure by our own standards and easily become judgmental in our assessments.

President Trump is very independent. He is still an outsider from the business world, not skilled in the niceties of party politics, and beholden to no one.  That makes him more powerful than is comfortable for most. He is supposed to be predictable and thus, manageable.  But he isn’t. Thus the anger and hate?

I do think his use of Executive Orders is overdone. Sometimes the objective seems a bit trivial (think of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation by Contrast)  In this way he follows  President Obama’s example – governing by fiat.  Again, a result of a weak legislature? Where are the Statesmen/women?  Do we need 6 year term limits to drain off the politics of re-election?

I think the age-old question is unanswered – does the end justify the means?  I think of real life examples like the European resistance to the Nazi regime.  I think of Bible examples such as:

Jacob the Deceiver

Joseph’s brothers

Cyrus the Persian

St. Paul’s Roman imprisonment — All meant for good in the final outcome, but   seemingly unfair in the process. I am not wise enough, or brave enough to venture a definitive answer.

I can only accept the truth that God is in control and His plan is good, VERY GOOD. I don’t think the last election was out of His control – we need to wait and see what will come of it.  Patience.

KN QUESTION G

More than anything else, I believe Donald Trump’s “fake news” mantra to decry anything that doesn’t agree with or fit his agenda has cynically degraded core institutions of our society. This approach is not at all consistent with what I would consider to be Christian values, nor does it lead to “ends” that I believe are consistent with Christian values. (It may very well lead to ends that amplify classic American values of individual freedom and material wealth, which might be at the heart of “MAGA” slogan, but I do not believe are at the heart of the gospel.) What Donald Trump stands for, I believe, is his own brand, and those who challenge that brand are excluded and/or disregarded. Jesus Christ, who we claim to follow, calls us to love God and neighbor as self. That’s hard enough to live into (impossible without experiencing God’s regenerating love and forgiveness ourselves) without a leader who blatantly normalizes self-interest and attack.

Maybe I’m naïve and this is always what politics has been about. I hope not. But if it is true, then Donald Trump has mastered it with little sham of anything else, and so far I don’t think we’re better for it.

BE QUESTION G

President Donald Trump has been attacked relentlessly. He understandably lashes out at the fake news perpetuated by most mainstream news media. For example, when he nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh, many commentators and reporters supported the unsubstantiated accusations of Christine Blasey-Ford and attacked Kavanaugh’s character. Our justice system is predicated upon “innocent until proven guilty,” but that principle was ignored.

Nick Sandmann and the other Covington kids were considered guilty because they committed three cardinal “sins”: they were white Catholics protesting abortion. Nick wearing a Make America Great hat and standing still while being confronted by the lying fake Vietnam veteran made him the target of hate and vitriol.

MAGA hats have attracted much attention, as has defending the right to life of unborn babies, with signs and displays being destroyed and peaceful pro-life proponents being verbally assaulted and violently attacked.

These things I point out to explain why I can tolerate some of President Trump’s behavior that I would otherwise criticize more. He and his supporters do not deserve the dreadful behaviors they have encountered.

It is ironic how Democrats denigrate President Trump for behavior they have tolerated from their party. Here are some examples:

First, previous Presidents could trust that their Supreme Court nominees would be approved almost unanimously. None were subjected to horrendous personal attacks like Brettt Kavanaugh.

Second, President Bill Clinton was allowed to defend himself during his impeachment proceedings and, even after he lied, was not removed from office, in spite of what he admitted to doing in the Oval Office. By contrast, Democrats have vowed since Trump was elected to remove him via impeachment, with no evidence that President Trump deserves it.

Third, Trump has been accused of being bigoted and racist. Several awards from the black community, most recently for changing drug sentencing that hurt blacks in particular, do not matter to Democrats.

Fourth, the border enforcement policy and so-called “cages” for which Trump has been condemned were begun and used during Obama’s Presidency.

My conclusion is that nothing President Trump says or does appalls me like what has been said and done against him.  I pray for protection for him and his family and urge all of us to do so daily.

MK QUESTION G

There’s also an old rhyme that goes like this: “Diplomacy is to do and say, the nastiest thing in the nicest way.”

Unfortunately, Trump does and says the nastiest things in the nastiest ways and rarely seems to have a nice way about him. Is this just Trump, or is Trump a symptom, a symbol, a representation of something bigger?

Before I answer that and before I get to my understanding of Christian values in this context, I want to make a comparison between Trump and Obama.

When it comes to politics, Obama wielded a surgeons’ scalpel. He could parse, make quick incisions, shake hands, smile and always be the gentleman. And with his diplomacy skills, he got a fair bit done. Much of what he accomplished, and the way he did it, left much to be desired. His means were different than Trumps, and he used those means to reach certain ends—many of which I strongly disagreed with.

Trump, on the other hand, does not wield a surgeon’s scalpel. He swings Thor’s hammer and smashes everything around him. If you don’t duck, you’ll get clobbered. Using his means, he also accomplishes much and also leaves a lot of destruction behind him. On a philosophical level, I agree with more of what he’s accomplishing than Obama did, but his means are more appalling to me than Obama’s ever were.

As a Christian, I side with Jesus that we turn the other cheek, give the cloak and not just the shirt, and trust with James 1 that Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

But in this age of borderline civil war between Left and Right, I don’t know how one would even go about being an effective ruler with a “turn the cheek” mentality. That’s why I asked earlier if Trump is a symbol or symptom of something bigger.  Obama’s means—his subtlety and statesmanship—helped him get things done. Trump’s means of wild flailing and smashing helps him get a tremendous amount done. But at what cost?

Both of these leaders have thrilled some, and made cynics out of others. Both men pleased some, and dismayed others. My human understanding leads me to think that if either of them had turned the other cheek, they would have been mowed down.

So let me bring this to a close. Are Trump’s means consistent with my understanding of Christian values? Absolutely not. Do I believe that his “means” are justified because they lead to “ends” that I think are consistent with Christian values? Absolutely not.

Which brings me right back to voting day 2016 and 2020. When faced with only two choices, I’ll vote not for the means, but for the ends. What a hypocrite I am.

LS QUESTION G

President Trumps way of doing politics is not in the fashion or way of what we think of as normal politician.  He has not changed his message from 30 years ago which you can see from videos of him from that time frame.  He is working every day to fulfill his campaign promises, the ends.  His use of vulgar language, rude behavior, or his belittle of his opponents are some examples that I feel are un-Christian means he uses.  There is no justification for anyone to utilize un-Christian means to accomplish an end. 

TA QUESTION G

I think the way Trump “does politics” is a dispiriting betrayal of American values and ideals. (To be fair, he is not the only politician whose methods I object to. There are others on both sides, but Trump’s performance is the subject at hand.) His means are not at all consistent with Christian values or even basic human decency much of the time. Forgive me if this is a clumsy analogy, but I believe his means taint his ends the same way crusaders’ means of achieving converts to Christianity corrupted the whole enterprise.

Trump’s means debase politics, debase civil discourse and taint his policy aims and achievements as well as those who celebrate them while excusing his behavior and methods. As a Christian, I particularly resent the way evangelicals have allowed Trump to stain the name and cause of Christ for the sake of political power. Conservative evangelical Michael Gerson expressed it better than I can in an October 28 column. Gerson is a Wheaton College graduate who served in the administration of George W. Bush as a speechwriter and assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning. He’s currently a nationally syndicated columnist and senior adviser at One, a bipartisan organization dedicated to the fight against extreme poverty and preventable diseases.

Gerson’s column is entitled “White evangelical Protestants are fully disrobed. And it is an embarrassing sight.” He references the findings of the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2019 American Values Survey and writes: “Consider the matter of immigration. Republicans who are white evangelical Protestants are the most likely group to say that immigrants are invading America and changing its culture. More than 90 percent of WEPs favor more restrictive immigration policies. They support the policy of family separation at the border more strongly than other religious groups and more strongly than Americans as a whole.

“How have we come to the point that American evangelicals are significantly crueler in their attitude toward migrant children than the national norm? The answer is simple enough. Rather than shaping President Trump’s agenda in Christian ways, they have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself.”

Gerson goes on: “According to the PRRI survey, nearly two-thirds of WEPs deny that Trump has damaged the dignity of his office … Forty-seven percent of WEPs say that Trump’s behavior makes no difference to their support. Thirty-one percent say there is almost nothing that Trump could do to forfeit their approval … [That] is not support; it is obeisance.

“… If Trump survives the impeachment process and somehow wins a second term, [a primary reason will be] because evangelicals lost their taste for character and gave their blessing to corruption. And this grand act of hypocrisy would mark them for a generation.”

SE QUESTION G

 1. The operating the executive branch:

As an owner and operator of my own business, I understand that it is not an easy task to be the leader of an organization.  So I have tremendous grace for folks who lead much larger operations than I do.  Of the many things I thought he would do poorly, I thought delegating the day to day operations of the Executive Branch would be one he would excel at.  What I have witnessed instead is mismanagement that results in high rates of turnover.  As a business owner, I know that turnover is expensive, and causes the entire progress of the organization to slow down.  Without even having numbers for Trump’s fourth year in office, he has already gained the worst turnover rate since Reagan.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

2. Trump’s active attack on information:

 In no way do I believe Trump is a Nazi.  I want to be very clear about that.  What I do know is that the Nazi Party actively attacked and destroyed the trust and reputation of the media which helped to errode the Weimar Republic.  When a group of people want authoritative control, they eliminate access to the truth and squash the influence of the truth.  In a brilliant and troubling shift, the President of the United States communicates to the American public through Twitter more than any other outlet.  He actively discredits news sources, including Fox News, whenever he receives bad coverage.  My deepest concern is that folks have stopped seeking and investigating truth, and instead sculpt reality out of the falsehoods of Trump’s tweets.  This has the very real possibility of giving way to dangerous authoritarian behavior that can (and I think already does) tear at the fabric of our republic. https://apnews.com/ec9e76c9ac9c4c1e985a364f402882e7

3. Trump is benefitting from private assets and foriegn governments:

 We have a President who ran on the promise of draining the swamp of Washington D.C..  In my view, the swamp is an untrustworthy coagulation of career politicians and big money swapping policy for dollars and excluding the common good of the American people from decision-making considerations.  When I see the way Trump uses his properties, and continues to profit off of his properties, it is difficult for me to imagine there being a drain installed anywhere in that swamp.  To create effective change, we need a candidate who is anti-corruption, and it becomes clearer everyday that Trump is not that person.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/17/us/politics/trump-emoluments-money.html

4. Trump’s rhetoric has fueled violence and shaped his Administration:

This is not about being mean.  This is about using a platform of power to propagate fear to the detriment of human beings.  We’ve talked a lot about pro-life here in this group.  We’ve even heard about policy positions and actions Trump has taken to the advance anti-abortion agenda.  But I hold a deep and strong conviction that Trump cannot be pro-life because he does not value life.  His candidacy was announced with racism toward immigrants, he openly lifts up far-right wing & Nazi talking points on Twitter and in press conferences, and his Administration’s abhorrent treatment of refugees and asyllum seekers at the border is beyond comprehension.  “The federal government received more than 4,500 complaints in four years about the sexual abuse of immigrant children who were being held at government-funded detention facilities, including an increase in complaints while the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the border was in place, the Justice Department revealed this week.” (NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/immigrant-children-sexual-abuse.html )  This is a horrific stain upon both President Obama and President Trump.  From AP news articles this past August, MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ASTRID GALVAN reported:

“Overall, statistics released by the FBI late last year showed hate crimes in the United States rose 17% in 2017 compared to the previous year, the third straight annual increase. There were 7,175 hate crime incidents in 2017, and of the crimes motivated by hatred over race or ethnicity, nearly half involved African-Americans and 11% were anti-Hispanic.”

and then later in the same article,

“A team from the University of North Texas recently produced a study that found counties that hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226% increase in reported hate incidents over comparable counties that did not host such a rally.”

https://apnews.com/7d0949974b1648a2bb592cab1f85aa16

5. Trump’s cozy behavior with authoritative regimes:

Most troubling of these examples, is the Trump Administration’s response to the killing of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the direction of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman which has been confirmed by the CIA.  Trump, who already holds public disdain for the media, shrugged off the death.  The US has continued to sell heavy arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia despite the killing and Saudi Arabia’s responsibility in using blockade to cut off Yemen from resources resulting in the death of 85,000 Yemeni children due to thirst and starvation.   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/us/politics/trump-khashoggi-killing-saudi-arabia.html & https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/world/middleeast/yemen-famine-children.html

What troubles me about each one of these points, is that not a single one is necessary for a conservative plan to reform American politics.  It is entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and operate a small central government without using racism, dismissing violence, attacking the media, allowing corruption, and mismanaging one’s administration.  One can even be anti-abortion and care for the lives of 85,000 children in Yemen.  But President Trump veils his racism, xenophobia, and violence as patriotism when he uses phrases like “America First” which echo back to earlier time in America when pro-Nazi US politicians uttered the same isolationist phrase.

I am a person who loves solutions.  I am a manager who is willing to try most things my employees suggest until they prove to not work.  My worldview limits my desire to engage in specific spheres of life, but if folks across the political spectrum have practical solutions to the injustice I see, I want to hear about them and see them work.  I am discouraged by the willingness of my neighbors to sacrifice sound ideology for chaos and violence, to trade in a practical political platform for the selfish, erratic decision making skills of President Trump.

I have stated openly before in this setting my understanding of the Gospel.  I have also stated my commitment to life from womb to tomb.  I love God, I trust Jesus, and I follow the call of the Spirit.  I am committed to the work of the church.  The previous stated list of Donald Trump’s actions are but a small sampling of the myriad of reasons that I cannot, as a follower of Christ, support President Trump.

To this point, I will add that if the Republican nomination had been a candidate like Mitt Romney or John Kasich, I would have voted R rather than vote for a Democrat I find problematic like Hilary Clinton in 2016 or if it’s Joe Biden in 2020.

Session 7

SESSION 7 – TRANSCRIPT

Full transcription of Session 7

Leading Questions:

FOR GENERAL SUPPORTERS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: Identify one initiative President Trump has taken for which you agree with his “goal” (“end”), clearly stating your reasons for your agreement in terms of your Christian beliefs.

 

  1. How would you describe the way President Trump is “doing politics” (his “means” for seeking to accomplish his “political goals”)? Are his “means” consistent with your understanding of Christian values? If not, do you believe his “means” are justified because they lead to “ends” that you believe are consistent with Christian values?

TM QUESTION F

I think Trump’s economic plans have done us a great service as far as the economy and people’s lives are concerned.  I’ve been banging this drum, but as the economy builds to full employment, opportunity abounds, and people can find the kind of work that moves them.  One of the things I’ve learned in my career is that there are plenty of people who actually like working with their hands.  I like to joke that God didn’t engineer my hands for physical labor, but there are a lot of people who feel the opposite, that they love to get into the physical, the dirty, moving things, driving forklifts, etc etc.  These people don’t want an office job.  I believe there are a lot of trades that won’t be eliminated by robots, and I don’t think they should be.

Cutting taxes is, in my estimation, the second best stimulus that we could have, noting that my preferred economic model, eliminating Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, isn’t politically viable.  I’m not in love with the trade war, but if you look at what the tariffs hit, China is putting a tariff on raw materials, food, and feed stock, whereas our tariffs hit finished, manufactured goods.  This seems to be hitting the Chinese economy harder than our own.  From CNBC, China’s economy grew by 6% in the 3rd quarter, which is the slowest in 27.5 years.  Again, I don’t love the trade war, and I’m not sure it’s as easy to win as Trump predicted, but he has hit Beijing in the place that they understand the most, their economy.

LN QUESTION F

I support President Trump’s Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) appointment initiative. Early in the campaign he declared that he would appoint strict constructionist judges, selecting SCOTUS justices from a disclosed list.  He has kept that promise. How often are campaign promises kept?

 

A strict constructionist is someone whose interpretation is based on the actual words and plain meaning of the Constitution itself, with practical applications to modern life, as opposed to so called “dynamic interpretation,” which allows judges to create or assume rights and meanings never intended by the founders but preferred by cultural progressives.

I am focusing on the newly “discovered” rights of personal privacy, personal autonomy, personal choice, the right to be left alone (Thurgood Marshall, pornography case – Stanley v. Georgia) and more: “The process of implausibly stretching the Constitution beyond recognition reached its zenith in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where progressive Justices dared to declare that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (F. LaGard Smith, Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 9,No. 1, 2019, p.7).

These creative, high sounding phrases have no existence in reality, but form the shaky foundation for all of the new rights being discovered by progressive judges in deference to current cultural preferences.

You have already heard my suggestion that the Legislature’s failure to govern by reflecting the will of the people has been supplanted by an overreaching Executive Branch (both parties) and progressive courts. Conservative legal scholars suggest that the only way to re-establish the original harmony/tension between the branches is to reassert the original bedrock of a fixed starting point at the Constitution.  President Trump is attempting to do just that, intentionally and uncompromisingly.

The pivotal point in this judicial appointment battleground occurred in July, 1987 when then President Reagan appointed Judge Robert Bork to the SCOTUS. This appointment came as no surprise.  Senator Edward Kennedy on the day of the announcement declared in caucus that the party must defeat him (Bork) by whatever means and at whatever cost or all is lost – our social agenda will be forever doomed, and Kennedy proceeded to bash Bork as a person, as a jurist and as an ideologue – all without honest substance. Ever since SCOTUS appointments have been dirty, messy political assassinations – going both ways.  SHAME.

As a Christian, I cannot presume to declare that I myself am the fountain of all truth—that I am free to define myself, my world and my eternal meaning in subjective terms as I see fit and to vary those pronouncements from time to time as I might find convenient or personally gratifying.  NO, I find myself defined and described best in Scripture which tells me that I am created a little lower than the angels in my Creator’s image, BUT have sinned both by my federal representative Adam and personally every day all day so that I need a sinless Savior who is revealed to me in that same Holy Writ—Namely one Lord Jesus Christ.

I reject the agenda of cultural progressivism and the judges and justices who promote and protect it. And I applaud President Trump for his appointments to SCOTUS.

KN QUESTION F

It’s not really the question, but I feel it’s important to acknowledge credit where it’s due. President Trump seemed to be a collaborative leader in his support for criminal justice reform in the sentencing of non-violent offenders – a very important societal issue, and one that I’m still not clear about his rationale for supporting it since the growth of privatized prison system and “lock them up” seem more consistent with his rhetoric and values. But other than that, there is very little that I would agree with, either in substance, method, or style.

So there are several “initiatives” for me to choose from, but I think the biggest one must be his stance against any measures that would address climate change. His goal/end would seem to be to accelerate, rather than impede in any way, the plundering of our planet’s natural resources to satisfy the profit motive of any who can do so. I’d like to grant it as ignorant and somewhat innocent disregard/disbelief in what he so arrogantly declares as the “fake news” of science, but I think it’s more than that. I think he actively chooses short-term riches over the long-term sustainability of life on this planet. I don’t know what he actually believes about climate change – what’s more clear is that he doesn’t care to know or, even more, to lead in a way that would do anything about it. In such a global leadership role, on an issue of such importance for the whole planet, and with such consensus between nations and in the scientific community that it must be addressed – his stance goes way beyond an innocent difference of opinion to blatant disregard for future generations.

My Christian faith calls for stewardship of the bountiful resources God has blessed us with in His creation, and consideration of the needs of my neighbor near and far away. I realize that some Christians believe the natural order is bound for destruction, and some actually welcome such demise as a hastening of that outcome. I was raised in a tradition that often took that position. But I have come to question that, believing in God’s renewal of a new earth as well as a new heaven. And I think that’s the essence of my comment last time that I think eschatology is largely a distraction from what is right in front of us and our God-given responsibility to do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with our God and what He has entrusted to us. I am far from feeling that I have done my best part in environmental consciousness and action, but I don’t want to look away from it, and I think the world needs leaders who will help us to organize to do more together than we could do alone. The world is already at-risk, and Donald Trump is taking us backward rather than forward.

BE QUESTION F

“All children—born and unborn—are created in the holy image of God.”

Those wise, winsome words spoken by President Donald Trump express why I can and must continue to support him as President of the United States of America. No previous President has consistently supported the right to life of unborn babies. No current candidate of any political party has campaigned on the unequivocal right to life from conception on except President Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has also done more to protect the right to life of unborn babies than any previous President, whether Democrat or Republican. I will list and explain 10 of his top pro-life achievements.

First, President Trump has cut, by up to 60 million dollars, federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, by its own accounting, kills over 300,000 unborn babies annually. Since Planned Parenthood donates millions of dollars to Democrats, cutting federal funding helps keep my tax dollars from murdering unborn babies and from supporting the Democratic Party, which is basically a blood money laundering machine for Planned Parenthood.

Second, President Trump has appointed, so far, two possibly pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. While I’m not convinced either of the new justices is completely pro-life, Hilary Clinton and the current Democratic candidates would appoint only pro-abortion Supreme Court justices.

Third, President Trump has issued new regulations for Title X funding. As a result, Planned Parenthood has withdrawn rather than comply. This has allowed these redirected federal funds to help health care centers that do not do abortions.

Fourth, President Trump has stopped our tax dollars from going to abortion-providing organizations overseas. According to the World Health Organization, the number of unborn babies killed annually by abortion is around 40-50 million. Trump’s action keeps our tax dollars from contributing to the slaughter.

Fifth, President Trump has defunded the United Nations Population Fund, known as the UNFPA because it formerly went by the name United Nations Fund for Population Activities. A very popular “population activity” the UNFPA funds is abortion. Thus, defunding the UNFPA keeps American tax dollars from, you guessed it, paying for abortions abroad.

Sixth, President Trump has required health insurance companies to disclose if they include coverage for abortion. That allows consumers to avoid helping fund abortion through the insurance  premiums they pay.

Seventh, Trump has trumped every other President when it comes to nominating and getting confirmed his choices for federal judges in his first year. And as of August 2019, Trump has had 152 judges confirmed for lifetime seats in our courts, with another 40 nominees who are awaiting approval. Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates are appalled that some of these judges actually believe, correctly, that our Constitution protects life from conception until natural death. Unlike death-dealing Democrats, I am delighted at this.

Eighth, Trump has established at the Department of Health and Human Services a new office for conscience protection. This can prevent doctors and other health professionals from being forced to perform or to assist in  performing abortions. A doctor should care about the Hippocratic Oath, which says “First, do no harm.” Since abortion harms society in general, the affected families in particular, and unborn babies especially, this new provision is wonderful and welcome news.

Ninth, President Trump has allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds. Medicaid, which helps poor people, should not spend our taxpayers’ money to hurt the poorest of the poor: unborn babies.

Tenth, Trump has cancelled a huge contract for taxpayer-funded experimentation with body parts of aborted babies. The research was often conducted by the National Institute of Health and has occurred at universities across the country. The University of California, San Francisco, for example, has been conducting research with the body parts of aborted babies for 30 years. Those researchers out-Frankenstein Dr. Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s classic horror story in their grisly procurement and use of body parts. Planned Parenthood employees have been videotaped discussing how to obtain body parts while performing abortions.

Closer to home, President Trump’s consistent, unequivocal support for life from conception until natural death has inspired pro-life proponents to pass legislation like Iowa’s Heartbeat Bill, which outlawed abortion when a heartbeat can be detected, around 6-7 weeks after conception. And the more Constitution-keeping judges President Trump gets to appoint, the more such laws will stand, rather than being overturned by pro-abortion kangaroo courts.

I believe that Christians must support the right to life from conception until natural death. The Bible says that God created human beings in His image. The Bible values human life so much that the first murderer, Cain, was punished severely for killing Abel. Psalm 139:13 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” This verse says God Himself causes each and every conception. Consequently, how can Christians do anything else except abhor abortion and do everything in their power to abolish abortion?

MK QUESTION F

Religious Freedom

I like limited government.

I like freedom to worship as I feel called by God to do.

The two are intertwined in a symbiotic relationship.

The founders of our country said that limited government is possible because of the virtue that comes from religion. The constitution guaranteed the free exercise of religion, but prohibited the establishment of a state religion. Other countries have gone the route of a state religion, and it has not ended well.

This arrangement of limited government and freedom of religion has produced a good balance between religion and state, that lets citizens follow their allegiance to God, while also obeying earthly authorities. The moral constraints brought about by an active, protected faith kept the populace mostly lawful, enabling the state to focus on bigger issues.

Families, churches, congregations all exercise moral constraint which is what allows us to have limited government. Because we can govern ourselves from within, we don’t need to be governed from without. Freedom of religion is an absolutely essential component of maintaining limited government.

Conversely, the encroachment of government—i.e., government becoming less limited—is directly linked to a people straying from Biblical truth and an understanding that certain freedoms are not granted by the government, but are protected by the government. As we become less and less sure of who we are as people created in God’s image, and more and more confused about Who we belong to, we look to others—often government—to be our source of identity and the one who provides all we need.

As sure and night follows day, government will expand to fill the void and take over more and more of a people’s daily affairs. Eventually, the cycle will be complete and the government will even try to regulate who, what and/or when a people may worship. Once that happens, it will be difficult or nearly impossible for a people to experience self-regulating morality that allows for limited government once again. Government will need to be much more pervasive as it assumes more and more of the role that God and self-regulating morality used to take care of.

Now, no longer able to be ruled from within, people without the freedom—or desire—to worship God, will need to be ruled from without.

Whether Trump sees the issue this way or not I do not know, but I do know that the freedom to worship is not a freedom for the government to grant. It is a freedom for the government to protect. Trump has taken steps to do that, both here and abroad, and I applaud him for it. Not only is it right from a religious perspective, but it is what our constitutional founders wanted.

LS QUESTION F

As I have stated before I feel that the most important and one of few mandates that God gives to any government is to protect its citizens.  I feel that Trump has done more to accomplish this mandate than any recent president.  This applies to not just to un-born children but also helping people get of government assistance, fight drug addiction, restoring the rule of law making our country safer by arresting MS-13 gage members, keeping us out of wars.

In the Belgic Confession Article 36 it says “We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, has appointed kings, princes, and magistrates; willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose, He has invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers and for the protection of them that do well.”

Here are just some of the pro-life accomplishments of the President and his Administration.

  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·
  • ·

TA QUESTION F

I disagree with Trump’s attempts to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act includes ideas and policies that were at one time Republican ideas, but Obama Derangement Syndrome became so pervasive in the Republican party that they shamelessly claimed up was down, black was white, and healthcare can be accessible and affordable for anyone who needs it without requiring that everyone have health insurance. Trump has perpetuated these lies and disparaged and damaged the affordable care act, despite its proven successes—including coverage of preexisting conditions and allowance for young adults to remain on parents’ policies.

I believe the Affordable Care Act was a step in a right direction (there may be other, unexplored right directions). I think the original design of it—that we would all help each other afford health care by all agreeing to purchase health insurance is almost biblical in the way it mimics our call as Christians to unselfishly share one another’s burdens. I disagree with Trump’s attempts to undo it without replacing it with something similar or better, and it seems clear to me that his claims he knows how to replace it with something better are nothing more than brazen, self-serving lies. (As a Christian, I also disagree with brazen, self-serving lying.)

SE QUESTION F

I have serious problems with President Trump’s actions on immigration.

  1. The border wall is ineffective and a waste of resources. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-says-walls-work-its-much-more-complicated
  2. The detention centers are inhumane. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/07/the-inhumane-conditions-at-migrant-detention-camps.html
  3. The Muslim ban on travel is an unAmerican policy and is stoking hatred toward our Muslim neighbors. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-muslim-ban-doesn-t-just-target-eight-countries-ncna868971
  4. Our rejection of asylum seekers, detention of asylum seekers, and reduction of refugee acceptance is a stain upon America’s identity. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/trump-refugees.html

 

All the way back in Deuteronomy (10:19), God tells God’s people to welcome the stranger in the land and reminds the Hebrew people that they were once strangers in Egypt seeking food during a famine (Genesis 47).  I think this example is incredibly powerful, because I think we have set the current refugee and immigrant need as low in comparison to the atrocities seen in Nazi Germany.  But Egypt welcomed Joseph’s family (Israel) simply because they were hungry.

The biblical reminder to love the alien and offer hospitality to the stranger is seen throughout the entire biblical text.  The author of Hebrews (13:1-3) tells us that when we welcome strangers we might be entertaining angels.  It is a powerful thought.

I agree with others who have stated in previous conversations that the biblical mandate to love our neighbor and care for the alien is not a mandate for the government but for the person who loves God and seeks after Jesus.  But if there is a policy that troubles me it is one that degrades at my ability to love well.  The positions Trump holds toward immigrants and the actions his administration has taken against immigrants and refugees is, in my view, an anti-Christian approach toward the neighbor.

TM QUESTION G

I don’t think that Donald Trump has done politics in a way that most of our political class is happy with.  As far as I’m concerned, he can interact with congress in any way he wishes, short of anything illegal or unethical.  It’s no different from working at your place of employment, if you don’t follow the handbook you’re liable to get fired, but short of that, if you’re difficult to work with, you probably get what you deserve in your employment.  I have worked with a number of people who are difficult, and I know it’s not fun.  Personally, I wish he was more collaborative, but I know that’s not why he was elected.

Honestly, Trump was a giant middle finger to the DC class, so if you’re expecting him to be pleasant or even normal to work with, that’s not the mandate he received.  He was sent as a change agent, and he has definitely hit that note.  I don’t think Bernie Sanders would be much different in style quite honestly.  He probably would have fit better into the DC mold than Trump does, but their messages are not that much different in all reality.

LN QUESTION G

I have mixed reactions to the way President Trump is pursuing his policies and goals as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He has governed in a style far more open but heavy handed than his predecessors.  Within the Beltway there is continuing disbelief that he has not yet come to heel as he “should”.  I find this refreshing but a little unnerving when I wonder what will happen next, Then I realize that I also expect him to behave in a certain way as if I own the process.  Our expectations seem to control our judgment of others.  We measure by our own standards and easily become judgmental in our assessments.

President Trump is very independent. He is still an outsider from the business world, not skilled in the niceties of party politics, and beholden to no one.  That makes him more powerful than is comfortable for most. He is supposed to be predictable and thus, manageable.  But he isn’t. Thus the anger and hate?

I do think his use of Executive Orders is overdone. Sometimes the objective seems a bit trivial (think of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation by Contrast)  In this way he follows  President Obama’s example – governing by fiat.  Again, a result of a weak legislature? Where are the Statesmen/women?  Do we need 6 year term limits to drain off the politics of re-election?

I think the age-old question is unanswered – does the end justify the means?  I think of real life examples like the European resistance to the Nazi regime.  I think of Bible examples such as:

Jacob the Deceiver

Joseph’s brothers

Cyrus the Persian

St. Paul’s Roman imprisonment — All meant for good in the final outcome, but   seemingly unfair in the process. I am not wise enough, or brave enough to venture a definitive answer.

I can only accept the truth that God is in control and His plan is good, VERY GOOD. I don’t think the last election was out of His control – we need to wait and see what will come of it.  Patience.

KN QUESTION G

More than anything else, I believe Donald Trump’s “fake news” mantra to decry anything that doesn’t agree with or fit his agenda has cynically degraded core institutions of our society. This approach is not at all consistent with what I would consider to be Christian values, nor does it lead to “ends” that I believe are consistent with Christian values. (It may very well lead to ends that amplify classic American values of individual freedom and material wealth, which might be at the heart of “MAGA” slogan, but I do not believe are at the heart of the gospel.) What Donald Trump stands for, I believe, is his own brand, and those who challenge that brand are excluded and/or disregarded. Jesus Christ, who we claim to follow, calls us to love God and neighbor as self. That’s hard enough to live into (impossible without experiencing God’s regenerating love and forgiveness ourselves) without a leader who blatantly normalizes self-interest and attack.

Maybe I’m naïve and this is always what politics has been about. I hope not. But if it is true, then Donald Trump has mastered it with little sham of anything else, and so far I don’t think we’re better for it.

BE QUESTION G

President Donald Trump has been attacked relentlessly. He understandably lashes out at the fake news perpetuated by most mainstream news media. For example, when he nominated Justice Brett Kavanaugh, many commentators and reporters supported the unsubstantiated accusations of Christine Blasey-Ford and attacked Kavanaugh’s character. Our justice system is predicated upon “innocent until proven guilty,” but that principle was ignored.

Nick Sandmann and the other Covington kids were considered guilty because they committed three cardinal “sins”: they were white Catholics protesting abortion. Nick wearing a Make America Great hat and standing still while being confronted by the lying fake Vietnam veteran made him the target of hate and vitriol.

MAGA hats have attracted much attention, as has defending the right to life of unborn babies, with signs and displays being destroyed and peaceful pro-life proponents being verbally assaulted and violently attacked.

These things I point out to explain why I can tolerate some of President Trump’s behavior that I would otherwise criticize more. He and his supporters do not deserve the dreadful behaviors they have encountered.

It is ironic how Democrats denigrate President Trump for behavior they have tolerated from their party. Here are some examples:

First, previous Presidents could trust that their Supreme Court nominees would be approved almost unanimously. None were subjected to horrendous personal attacks like Brettt Kavanaugh.

Second, President Bill Clinton was allowed to defend himself during his impeachment proceedings and, even after he lied, was not removed from office, in spite of what he admitted to doing in the Oval Office. By contrast, Democrats have vowed since Trump was elected to remove him via impeachment, with no evidence that President Trump deserves it.

Third, Trump has been accused of being bigoted and racist. Several awards from the black community, most recently for changing drug sentencing that hurt blacks in particular, do not matter to Democrats.

Fourth, the border enforcement policy and so-called “cages” for which Trump has been condemned were begun and used during Obama’s Presidency.

My conclusion is that nothing President Trump says or does appalls me like what has been said and done against him.  I pray for protection for him and his family and urge all of us to do so daily.

MK QUESTION G

There’s also an old rhyme that goes like this: “Diplomacy is to do and say, the nastiest thing in the nicest way.”

Unfortunately, Trump does and says the nastiest things in the nastiest ways and rarely seems to have a nice way about him. Is this just Trump, or is Trump a symptom, a symbol, a representation of something bigger?

Before I answer that and before I get to my understanding of Christian values in this context, I want to make a comparison between Trump and Obama.

When it comes to politics, Obama wielded a surgeons’ scalpel. He could parse, make quick incisions, shake hands, smile and always be the gentleman. And with his diplomacy skills, he got a fair bit done. Much of what he accomplished, and the way he did it, left much to be desired. His means were different than Trumps, and he used those means to reach certain ends—many of which I strongly disagreed with.

Trump, on the other hand, does not wield a surgeon’s scalpel. He swings Thor’s hammer and smashes everything around him. If you don’t duck, you’ll get clobbered. Using his means, he also accomplishes much and also leaves a lot of destruction behind him. On a philosophical level, I agree with more of what he’s accomplishing than Obama did, but his means are more appalling to me than Obama’s ever were.

As a Christian, I side with Jesus that we turn the other cheek, give the cloak and not just the shirt, and trust with James 1 that Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.

But in this age of borderline civil war between Left and Right, I don’t know how one would even go about being an effective ruler with a “turn the cheek” mentality. That’s why I asked earlier if Trump is a symbol or symptom of something bigger.  Obama’s means—his subtlety and statesmanship—helped him get things done. Trump’s means of wild flailing and smashing helps him get a tremendous amount done. But at what cost?

Both of these leaders have thrilled some, and made cynics out of others. Both men pleased some, and dismayed others. My human understanding leads me to think that if either of them had turned the other cheek, they would have been mowed down.

So let me bring this to a close. Are Trump’s means consistent with my understanding of Christian values? Absolutely not. Do I believe that his “means” are justified because they lead to “ends” that I think are consistent with Christian values? Absolutely not.

Which brings me right back to voting day 2016 and 2020. When faced with only two choices, I’ll vote not for the means, but for the ends. What a hypocrite I am.

LS QUESTION G

President Trumps way of doing politics is not in the fashion or way of what we think of as normal politician.  He has not changed his message from 30 years ago which you can see from videos of him from that time frame.  He is working every day to fulfill his campaign promises, the ends.  His use of vulgar language, rude behavior, or his belittle of his opponents are some examples that I feel are un-Christian means he uses.  There is no justification for anyone to utilize un-Christian means to accomplish an end.

TA QUESTION G

I think the way Trump “does politics” is a dispiriting betrayal of American values and ideals. (To be fair, he is not the only politician whose methods I object to. There are others on both sides, but Trump’s performance is the subject at hand.) His means are not at all consistent with Christian values or even basic human decency much of the time. Forgive me if this is a clumsy analogy, but I believe his means taint his ends the same way crusaders’ means of achieving converts to Christianity corrupted the whole enterprise.

Trump’s means debase politics, debase civil discourse and taint his policy aims and achievements as well as those who celebrate them while excusing his behavior and methods. As a Christian, I particularly resent the way evangelicals have allowed Trump to stain the name and cause of Christ for the sake of political power. Conservative evangelical Michael Gerson expressed it better than I can in an October 28 column. Gerson is a Wheaton College graduate who served in the administration of George W. Bush as a speechwriter and assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning. He’s currently a nationally syndicated columnist and senior adviser at One, a bipartisan organization dedicated to the fight against extreme poverty and preventable diseases.

Gerson’s column is entitled “White evangelical Protestants are fully disrobed. And it is an embarrassing sight.” He references the findings of the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2019 American Values Survey and writes: “Consider the matter of immigration. Republicans who are white evangelical Protestants are the most likely group to say that immigrants are invading America and changing its culture. More than 90 percent of WEPs favor more restrictive immigration policies. They support the policy of family separation at the border more strongly than other religious groups and more strongly than Americans as a whole.

“How have we come to the point that American evangelicals are significantly crueler in their attitude toward migrant children than the national norm? The answer is simple enough. Rather than shaping President Trump’s agenda in Christian ways, they have been reshaped into the image of Trump himself.”

Gerson goes on: “According to the PRRI survey, nearly two-thirds of WEPs deny that Trump has damaged the dignity of his office … Forty-seven percent of WEPs say that Trump’s behavior makes no difference to their support. Thirty-one percent say there is almost nothing that Trump could do to forfeit their approval … [That] is not support; it is obeisance.

“… If Trump survives the impeachment process and somehow wins a second term, [a primary reason will be] because evangelicals lost their taste for character and gave their blessing to corruption. And this grand act of hypocrisy would mark them for a generation.”

SE QUESTION G

  1. The operating the executive branch:

As an owner and operator of my own business, I understand that it is not an easy task to be the leader of an organization.  So I have tremendous grace for folks who lead much larger operations than I do.  Of the many things I thought he would do poorly, I thought delegating the day to day operations of the Executive Branch would be one he would excel at.  What I have witnessed instead is mismanagement that results in high rates of turnover.  As a business owner, I know that turnover is expensive, and causes the entire progress of the organization to slow down.  Without even having numbers for Trump’s fourth year in office, he has already gained the worst turnover rate since Reagan.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/

 

  1. Trump’s active attack on information:

In no way do I believe Trump is a Nazi.  I want to be very clear about that.  What I do know is that the Nazi Party actively attacked and destroyed the trust and reputation of the media which helped to errode the Weimar Republic.  When a group of people want authoritative control, they eliminate access to the truth and squash the influence of the truth.  In a brilliant and troubling shift, the President of the United States communicates to the American public through Twitter more than any other outlet.  He actively discredits news sources, including Fox News, whenever he receives bad coverage.  My deepest concern is that folks have stopped seeking and investigating truth, and instead sculpt reality out of the falsehoods of Trump’s tweets.  This has the very real possibility of giving way to dangerous authoritarian behavior that can (and I think already does) tear at the fabric of our republic. https://apnews.com/ec9e76c9ac9c4c1e985a364f402882e7

 

  1. Trump is benefitting from private assets and foriegn governments:

We have a President who ran on the promise of draining the swamp of Washington D.C..  In my view, the swamp is an untrustworthy coagulation of career politicians and big money swapping policy for dollars and excluding the common good of the American people from decision-making considerations.  When I see the way Trump uses his properties, and continues to profit off of his properties, it is difficult for me to imagine there being a drain installed anywhere in that swamp.  To create effective change, we need a candidate who is anti-corruption, and it becomes clearer everyday that Trump is not that person.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/17/us/politics/trump-emoluments-money.html

 

  1. Trump’s rhetoric has fueled violence and shaped his Administration: This is not about being mean.  This is about using a platform of power to propagate fear to the detriment of human beings.  We’ve talked a lot about pro-life here in this group.  We’ve even heard about policy positions and actions Trump has taken to the advance anti-abortion agenda.  But I hold a deep and strong conviction that Trump cannot be pro-life because he does not value life.  His candidacy was announced with racism toward immigrants, he openly lifts up far-right wing & Nazi talking points on Twitter and in press conferences, and his Administration’s abhorrent treatment of refugees and asyllum seekers at the border is beyond comprehension.  “The federal government received more than 4,500 complaints in four years about the sexual abuse of immigrant children who were being held at government-funded detention facilities, including an increase in complaints while the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the border was in place, the Justice Department revealed this week.” (NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/us/immigrant-children-sexual-abuse.html )  This is a horrific stain upon both President Obama and President Trump.  From AP news articles this past August, MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ASTRID GALVAN reported:

 

“Overall, statistics released by the FBI late last year showed hate crimes in the United States rose 17% in 2017 compared to the previous year, the third straight annual increase. There were 7,175 hate crime incidents in 2017, and of the crimes motivated by hatred over race or ethnicity, nearly half involved African-Americans and 11% were anti-Hispanic.”

 

and then later in the same article,

 

“A team from the University of North Texas recently produced a study that found counties that hosted a 2016 Trump campaign rally saw a 226% increase in reported hate incidents over comparable counties that did not host such a rally.”

 

https://apnews.com/7d0949974b1648a2bb592cab1f85aa16

 

  1. Trump’s cozy behavior with authoritative regimes: Most troubling of these examples, is the Trump Administration’s response to the killing of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the direction of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman which has been confirmed by the CIA.  Trump, who already holds public disdain for the media, shrugged off the death.  The US has continued to sell heavy arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia despite the killing and Saudi Arabia’s responsibility in using blockade to cut off Yemen from resources resulting in the death of 85,000 Yemeni children due to thirst and starvation.   https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/23/us/politics/trump-khashoggi-killing-saudi-arabia.html & https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/world/middleeast/yemen-famine-children.html

 

What troubles me about each one of these points, is that not a single one is necessary for a conservative plan to reform American politics.  It is entirely possible to be fiscally conservative and operate a small central government without using racism, dismissing violence, attacking the media, allowing corruption, and mismanaging one’s administration.  One can even be anti-abortion and care for the lives of 85,000 children in Yemen.  But President Trump veils his racism, xenophobia, and violence as patriotism when he uses phrases like “America First” which echo back to earlier time in America when pro-Nazi US politicians uttered the same isolationist phrase.

 

I am a person who loves solutions.  I am a manager who is willing to try most things my employees suggest until they prove to not work.  My worldview limits my desire to engage in specific spheres of life, but if folks across the political spectrum have practical solutions to the injustice I see, I want to hear about them and see them work.  I am discouraged by the willingness of my neighbors to sacrifice sound ideology for chaos and violence, to trade in a practical political platform for the selfish, erratic decision making skills of President Trump.

 

I have stated openly before in this setting my understanding of the Gospel.  I have also stated my commitment to life from womb to tomb.  I love God, I trust Jesus, and I follow the call of the Spirit.  I am committed to the work of the church.  The previous stated list of Donald Trump’s actions are but a small sampling of the myriad of reasons that I cannot, as a follower of Christ, support President Trump.

 

To this point, I will add that if the Republican nomination had been a candidate like Mitt Romney or John Kasich, I would have voted R rather than vote for a Democrat I find problematic like Hilary Clinton in 2016 or if it’s Joe Biden in 2020.

Session 5 – Transcript

SESSION 5– TRANSCRIPT

Full transcription of Session 5

Leading Questions: 

  1. What is your Christian understanding of the meaning of “prosperity” and to what extent is President Trump fostering, or not, such prosperity?
  2. What is your Christian understanding of the scope of the “gospel” and to what extent is President Trump fostering, or not, your understanding of that scope?

 

BE QUESTION C

I figured that a number of you would touch on financial prosperity and that I would probably agree with most of everything you would say, which I do. So, I focused instead on the rest of prosperity’s definition, which on my Wikipedia was flourishing, thriving, happiness, and health. I noticed those four things have a lot in common. The most important component of which, and let me be very obvious here, they require life. Where there is no life, there can be no prosperity. I feel that looking at prosperity from that perspective, our country is impoverished. Our country is morally bankrupt. We have allowed over 60 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in the womb. That is the opposite of flourishing, thriving, happiness, and health.

Maybe there’s some unique exception when you kill your own child, so I thought I would research that a little bit, see what the Bible had to say about killing your own family members. In Genesis, the very first murder was what we call brother on brother murder. God didn’t say, “I’ll give you a pass. When it’s all in the family, it’s fine.” The punishment was swift and severe, and God made it crystal clear, it was not okay. Later in the Old Testament, we had the multiple millions of children, there’s no count given, who were sacrificed to the pagan god Moloch. God didn’t say, “It’s okay to kill your children after they’re born as long as you’re doing it for a godly reason,” let’s call it choice. They were punished and they were punished severely. In fact, it says in Jeremiah 32 verse 36, “Child sacrifice was one reason why they were sent into captivity to the Babylonians.” That’s a pretty severe punishment, and I fear that we are on that path.

We have not done enough to stop the onslaught and the slaughter. Like the blood of Abel cried out to God, I hear the blood of those unborn babies calling to us, and I’m always so disappointed when my fellow Christians keep wanting to find and carve out exceptions. But what about this? But what about that? Because, I don’t see God making exceptions. If we ask ourselves how did that life come to be in the womb, in every instance, God placed it there. In other words, regardless of the circumstances of conception, regardless of who the father is, regardless of who the mother is.

I think about the line of Abraham Kuyper, and 40 years ago plus, when I was at Dordt College, already that was a theme that reverberated in many of my classes. There is not one square inch in all of creation of which God does not say, “Mine,” and that includes the womb. The womb is God’s. God is the creator and giver of life, and He says only of human beings, that they are made in God’s image. Every verse I ever find in scripture that talks about humans sets them aside as something special, made in God’s image. It is the highest form of arrogance and idolatry, in fact, to put yourself on the throne and say, “In this case, I get to play God.”

Having said that, for there to be true prosperity, we would have to have a society in which every child was wanted, and it was crystal clear that that child would have a good home. We’re nowhere close to that, and I acknowledge that too. But, we do have to start by providing life because there are an awful lot of people whose life circumstances start off horribly, and that is not the end of their story, the story that God has written for them. One could argue that Mary herself, the mother of Jesus, was a prime candidate for abortion. That was not the plan for life that she had. She said, “May it be to me, as you have said,” when the angel talked to her. I know we’re nowhere close to that. We don’t have the resources yet and we don’t have the mentality yet. But, for there to be true prosperity that is necessary.

I am very, very frightened by Proverbs 6 verse 17. It says that God hates, hates hands that shed innocent blood. That is a warning to all of us, because we are not necessarily guilty of hands that shed innocent blood, but we all have voices. I truly, truly believe that God is watching whether we are speaking up and doing everything that we can to help prosperity come in our country, and that is not the only thing that needs to change. But, surprise, surprise, that’s what I talked about.

Now, what has Trump done? 10 things, very clear specific things. You know I’ve talked before about what he said at the State of the Union address. There’s not one Democrat that would say anything like that, never have, never will. Here’s what he has done. He has cut Planned Parenthood’s tax money by up to $60 million, so that makes it harder for them to go on killing 300,000 plus babies a year. He has appointed pro-life judges who are somewhat doing pro-life things. Even the two that got on the Supreme Court, they’re not that conservative, but at least they’re better than someone that Clinton would have appointed.

He has permitted states to defund Planned Parenthood of Title X funding. He has stopped our tax dollars going to abortion organizations overseas. I believe that’s through the Hyde Amendment finally being correctly applied. He has de-funded the pro-abortion United Nations FPA. He has required health insurance companies to disclose if plan’s cover abortion. He has put strong pro-life appointments in his administration.

There’s a new Office for Conscience Protection at the Department of Health and Human Services, and that means that a doctor and other medical professionals who do not want to perform or assist in abortions don’t have to, and yes, they have been forced to. My cousin was forced to perform abortions when he was training to be a doctor. That was non-negotiable. President Trump has allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds, and he has canceled a huge contract for taxpayer funded research on unborn babies’ body parts. I think those are incredibly positive things. If you can come up with another candidate that you think would do similarly well in 2020, I’m longing to hear who it is. Because, I am not a fan of Trump, but I am a fan of much of what he has done.

Thank you.

 

KN QUESTION C

Shalom. Peace with justice for all. Flourishing, beloved community, is the type of “prosperity” that Christian scriptures concern themselves with. I believe it’s more relational than material. We are to rely on God for our daily bread and be good stewards of the gifts were given, for the welfare of others, not just ourselves, and it may be that God blesses us materially, to be a physical blessing to others. But, there are more warnings in scripture about wealth being an impediment to our participation in Shalom, than something that contributes to it. The “prosperity gospel” is quite attractive. But I’d say personally that I’m afraid it is a perverse twisting of the gospel to be more about me and my comfort, than honoring God or others, which becomes idolatry. The prosperity that president Trump seeks, seems to be focused on himself, and maybe it extends to those he believes to be most like him. But even this prosperity is built on the exploitation of others, and is likely owned by it. And that prosperity, I believe, is likely owned by others in ways that enslave him to their interests. It is not charitable, transparent, or vulnerable, accountable to others.

 

LS QUESTION C

My idea of Christian prosperity is in line with a lot of what’s been said already. Biblical prosperity is not something that is promoted as an important virtue for a Christian. As we are taught by our Lord Jesus, we’re to pray for our daily bread, which has already been spoken about, we are to be content with just bread, we are to be content with the bare necessities. Perfect prosperity is of no value to we as a Christian. I feel that we as Christians have a very incorrect understanding that God is blessing someone just because they are rich or prosperous. I’ll read from Psalm 73 in a bit to speak about that, a truth that is out there, is that blessings are not in things. We spoke about that already, that it’s a false thing for us to think that just because we have great prosperity or anybody does, that that’s God blessing them, there is no such thing as that as a truth.

There is a truth spoken in the Bible for those that God does give prosperity to in first Timothy, “Charge them that are rich in this world that they be not high-minded nor trust in uncertain riches but in the living God who giveth us richly all things to enjoy and then that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute and willing to communicate.” Therein is a calling for those whom God does give riches to. Solomon in his wisdom speaks often about earthly things being vanity of vanity, vanity being of no importance to we as Christians. The Bible is ripe with many admonitions and warnings related to riches for a Christian.

Again, something that was spoken of, an early church father spoke about the blood of martyrs being the seed of the church. The teaching is that the church has been and always is the strongest and most zealous for the truth when it has been persecuted, not when it is prosperous. This has been the history of the true church throughout the ages.

Psalm 73 speaks about how we as Christians can look around us and be jealous of those who we think are being prosperous: “I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. There are no bans in her death, but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as other men, neither are they plagued like other men. Their eyes stand out with fatness. They have more than their heart could wish.” So, the Psalmist is looking around him at what the world thinks of as prosperity and him being jealous of that.

And then the Lord leads him to see: “When I thought to know this, it was painful for me until I went into the sanctuary of God. Then I understood their end. Surely thou hast set them in slippery places. I’ll cast them down in destruction.” So, they’re speaking about God giving prosperity to the wicked as a means to bring them to their destruction. That was a slippery slope that they were put on by God.

And again, I already talked about Ecclesiastes, Solomon’s vanity of vanities: “Sayeth the preacher. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit hath the man of all his labor, which he taketh the under the sun?”

From second Chronicles Solomon again: “Because this was in my heart that thou has not asked for riches and wealth or honor, nor the life of thy enemies, neither yet hast thou asked long life. But instead thou hast asked for wisdom and knowledge for thyself.”

Part of First Timothy that I already spoke about is an admonition: “Let us therewith to be content that they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into foolish and hurtful lust which drown them in destruction, for the love of money is the root of all evil.” A verse that’s often misquoted. It doesn’t say money is the root of all evil; the love of money is the root of all evil: “But thou, Oh God, flee these things and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love and patience.”

And lastly in Philippians Four, where Paul speaks of what he’s come to understand is important in life: “Not that I speak in respect of want, for I have learned in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased and I know how to abound. Everywhere in all things, I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.”

So, this is all quite contrary to what the world thinks of as prosperity. And I’m afraid often how we as Christians think of prosperity, I don’t feel that it is a virtue for us Christians to seek after great riches in this world. So, obviously I don’t feel the government has any role in spiritual prosperity, which I think is the important thing for us Christians to look at. Relative to prosperity or riches, the only thing I can say about President Trump is that he has, as has already been spoken of, made it much more possible in our economy, if you want to prosper or if you want to have earthly needs taken care of, you certainly have no reason not to have that.

Thank you.

 

LN QUESTION C

What is my Christian understanding of prosperity? Taking a chronological approach, maybe first to look at some Old Testament principles and then the New Testament up to modern times. Two themes jump out at me in the Old Testament. One is the concept of obedience as a covenantal responsibility. “I will be your God and you will be my people.” In Isaiah, we have the principle laid down that says, “If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land, but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” So, that’s the principle that gets repeated over and over. It almost seems like it’s formulaic. “Behave, be blessed; Rebel, retribution.” The stories of drought and starvation, invading armies, the period of the judges, the Philistines, or the punishment, then the era of the Kings, when there was idolatry, there would be death and destruction, including the royal line each time, but always a stump was saved and a remnant, which was preserved.

The other strong theme that we hear a lot about in the Old Testament is shalom, and I was impressed with that concept when we were in Israel. Shalom is your home, your wife, your children, your vine, your pomegranate tree, your small flock of sheep and a well. There was peace in the land. “God is good. Enjoy blessedness.” And I think that concept of shalom was based on the idea of adequacy or enough, not more than milk and honey, but milk and honey. Just enough. Proverbs comes along then and says, “Be careful. Wealth is a temptation.” Using advice on how to prosper, it says, “Go to the ant, you sluggard. Prepare for winter and summer. Don’t be foolish. First, work your fields, then build your house. Be faithful and you will prosper.” Not so much as a reward, as a natural law. “This is how it works, and this is how it should work.” Almost as if that concept is prescriptive. And so I think I end with, “Enough so that I may not rob my neighbor, nor too much so that I might forget my God,” out of Proverbs.

Then in the Gospel age, I have more of a struggle. The principles aren’t as clear for me. If you flourish, you can fund missionaries, but we learned that the church really grows during times of persecution. And so the juxtaposition of those two ideas doesn’t settle well in my brain. In my experience, I like to see full employment with full opportunity. I think the disabled and the disadvantaged need to be cared for, but I want to stop short of entitlements, that mentality that says, “Everybody needs to have free tuition,” and all of the other benefits that we’re hearing about today. Also, the principal of sloth and wastage that comes with those who choose not to work. Somehow we have to arrive at a balance, I think, to approach it as Christians and have a good economy, to prosper.

I do think that Trump supports traditional values of work and incentives, not handouts that cripple. I think there’s been some controlling of overreaching regulations, which stifle incentive and some needed competition. I still believe in capitalism, if some of the abuses are controlled, but I think the concept of opportunity still works. Again, I think we need balance. We’ve got competing interests. It’s not an easy answer. I just hope everybody will be willing to surrender their own agenda.

 

SE QUESTION C

Being prosperous is in my view, directly connected to material possessions and financial flourishing. Christ speaks quite openly and directly about material wealth in the gospels, but I can’t recall Jesus ever declaring material possessions sinful outright. Instead, I think Jesus points to our posture towards wealth. In Matthew six, Jesus declares that we cannot serve both God and wealth. Then He goes on to teach about the futility of worry, specifically worry that is connected to our material needs. Jesus also teaches not to store up our treasures here, in Matthew six. He calls the rich young ruler on to sell all his possessions and then points out the widow who gives sacrificially and not out of abundance.

Broadly speaking, Jesus calls us into action. An action of putting to death all our worldly connections to our identity, which specifically includes our dependence upon and service to our material possessions. I would consider the Christian understanding of prosperity to be an abundance of material possessions that should not be the foundation of our identity or stability, but rather be a gift to be shared for the furthering of the kingdom of God. In our global economy, wealth is connected to labor. Labor produces, the product of labor is sold. The money of the sold product is distributed amongst those who help produce the labor. The Bible speaks clearly and directly against the exploitation of labor for the gain of the already prosperous.

See Isaiah three, Micah three, Amos five and James five for examples. My practical perspective is that our material possessions should come to us honestly. If we have made money off the labor of others, we should find ways to ensure that we have given fairly and respectfully to those whose labor has benefited us. I also believe that we need to be conscious of our need.

Paul writes in 2nd Corinthians 8:7-15 “Now as you excel in everything, in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in utmost eagerness and in our love for you. So we want you to excel also in this generous undertaking. I do not say this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love against the earnestness of others. For you know, the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes became poor so that by his poverty you might become rich. And in this manner I am I’m giving my advice, it is appropriate for you who began last year, not only to do something but even to desire to do something. Now finish doing it so that your eagerness may be matched by completing it according to your means. For if the eagerness is there, the gift is access acceptable according to what one has not according to what one does not have. I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of fair balance between your present abundance and their need so that their abundance may be for your need in order that there may be fair balance. As it is written, the one who had much did not have too much and the one who had little did not have too little.”

That’s the end of the passage. I do not believe it is the call of the Christian to expect their government or in our historical context, Donald Trump, to facilitate that fair balance Paul talks about, but I do believe the church has a lot of work to do systemically to relieve the burden of the poor, to meet the needs of those who have nothing. The lack of affordable housing, the abundance of healthcare needs, the high levels of food insecurity and inaccessibility to clean drinking water are an indictment upon the church of which I am a member, a lamenting member who confesses my own complicity in this negligence.

So, as I grow in my action and push the church in movement towards action, I do appreciate and value government policy that lifts up the poor and afflicted, spreading the cost to all citizens so that we may share in the burdens of our neighbors. In an effort to be more concrete and less theoretical, I support policies like Medicare for all because I believe as we relieve the burden of healthcare costs for the lower and middle class, their ability to make ends meet increases.

 

TA QUESTION C

As a Christian, I believe that prosperity is akin to flourishing, and that God desires that all creation flourish. I think God understands our human weakness for material prosperity, but I don’t think God desires or is pleased by inequities in prosperity or flourishing. National prosperity achieved in part through Native American genocide and the enslavement of blacks, through the exploitation of people and resources—both here and in other countries—is not prosperity that Christians, especially, should be comfortable with or believe is deserved.

One of our conversation partners referred in an answer to a previous question to lies we allow ourselves to believe. I think we allow ourselves to believe lies about prosperity—lies like that we and our country are prosperous because God blesses us and that people and countries suffering a lack of prosperity have brought it on themselves by displeasing God. We believe that God blesses us, God doesn’t bless them, and that’s what God desires: I think that’s a lie. I think we use that lie to rationalize our own selfish prosperity at the expense of others and to let ourselves off the hook. I know I have done that.

As citizens of Christ’s kingdom first and foremost, we should desire and advocate for the flourishing of all creation—not just us, our family members, our community, our nation—but everyone everywhere. We should care about and stand opposed to policies that diminish or prevent flourishing both here in our country and elsewhere.

Selfish ambition is antithetical to the flourishing of all creation, and President Trump is selfish ambition personified. I see little evidence he genuinely cares whether anyone or anything prospers beyond his own “kingdom,” which includes himself, his family and his businesses. His administration may have enacted policies that put more money in the pockets and accounts of some, but I think that’s an impoverished view of prosperity that has little connection to the kind of prosperity Christians should be concerned with.

 

TM QUESTION C

Prosperity based on biblical teaching is, in my opinion, having enough, actually, a lot of what has been said about Shalom, having enough to take care of myself and my family, and enough to give to those in need. As far as it concerns us here in the United States, I’m going to assume that if you have a job that you can probably live reasonably comfortably. Maybe not in full prosperity, if you will, like most of us do. But, you can feed yourself and house yourself and to have transportation and all that stuff.

Yeah, I think the seasonally adjusted jobless rate just came out and that’s at 3.5%, so that’s, effectively, full employment (I got that stat from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Basically, there are jobs out there, and for the people who want to work, they have the opportunity to work and live comfortably; not as if they’re in need. If you assume market forces are at work and there’s a scarcity in labor, then for those who don’t have a job that’s capable of supporting themselves, as long as they’ve got basically minimal competency, they should be able to find a new job to improve their own situation in life. I do think that this has been one of Trump’s greatest achievements, and I know for my company that the last couple of years have been some of our highest activity years, and hopefully this year is going to be a really profitable year for us.

I do think that the raw materials, if you will, are there to increase individual prosperity even more if we could eliminate things like consumer debt and especially the student loan crisis that looms over my generation. But GDP has generally been more than during the Obama years: Six out of the last 10 quarters have been higher than roughly the Obama range. I think the economy

reached a plateau under Obama, whether that was his policies or personality or whatever, but I think the economy has expanded greatly and has benefited a lot of people under Donald Trump.

Thank you.

 

BE QUESTION D

Literally, the word gospel means good news. What is that good news? Christ came to save sinners. In his salvation, we see two parts. The justification part, those of us who are reformed understand as being, I am made right with God just as if I never sinned. We like calling Jesus our savior. But, there’s a second part to salvation. True salvation also consists of sanctification. In there, we almost see the word “saint.” We are to become more and more Christ-like, and I feel like that’s the part, the scope of the gospel that has been overlooked by all of us at some point in our lives. I feel like it’s been overlooked by what I would describe as the more liberal or progressive churches.

Jesus needs to be the king of our lives, and that means that we have to surrender everything to him. There is not one part of our lives, to quote Kuyper again, over which he does not say mine. That has many, many applications, and there are a number of places listed where what the fruit of the spirit should be: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. I might’ve missed one. But there are also grocery lists of sins and it says, “Do not be deceived. They will not inherit the kingdom.” Now, that’s God’s business who will inherit and who will not. But, I should’ve brought a big picture I have at home. It says broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are they who find it. Narrow is the way, narrow is the gate that leads to salvation.

Part of the gospel is saying that we need to confess our sins, repent of our sins, and literally turn away from our sins. There are many words that talk about how our sin nature has to be abandoned. We have to put aside the flesh, and so part of the gospel is saying it’s not okay to stay living the way that you were. I see a huge acceptance of the idea that it wasn’t right when we had all these legalistic requirements. That kind of destroyed the heart of the gospel. But, it also wasn’t right when people are allowed to stay living in sin as if there’s no consequence for that. I feel like that’s where the scope of the gospel is being cut in half by the modern church.

Now, how does that apply to Trump? This is not a very good segue because I was modifying what I was going to say even as I was listening to everybody else. I decided to hit on that because nobody else did. There really wasn’t one person that talked about the need for ongoing daily repentance. It’s not judgmental to say what the Bible says, or it’s interesting how those who are very busy telling me I can’t judge, what is that if not a judgment? Let’s be honest, we are the judge, and God will judge our judging. Here’s what I will go on to say now about President Trump, because rather than being vague, I don’t like him, I don’t think he follows the gospel, imputing all kinds of motives to him. Let’s agree that we’re doing lots of judging. I will simply list specific things that he has done, and then we can judge whether he has in fact facilitated the gospel to some degree.

In 2017, the first year of his first term, President Trump signed an executive order to advance religious freedom, restoring the ideals that have undergirded our nation since its founding. The president has taken action to ensure Americans, and organizations are not forced to violate their religious or moral beliefs by complying with Obamacare’s ungodly, unbiblical, contraceptive mandate. That benefited Dordt College when they had a big lawsuit and they were successful, and it also benefited the bunch of nuns and others as well, perhaps. The Department of Health and Human Services has established a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, I referred to that earlier, so that you are not forced to assist with abortions if you prefer not to.

This year, the administration has finalized a rule providing more flexibility for federal employees whose religious beliefs require them to abstain from work on certain days, and the administration has stood for religious freedom in the courts in things like the Phillips case, in the Barronelle, if I’m saying her name correctly, the florist case. That is something that a democratic administration wouldn’t do because they would be bending over backwards to protect the rights of the rights. The United States has also provided humanitarian aid to help Christians who suffer at the hands of ISIS and to help refugees fleeing persecution.

Fun fact, statistically, Christians are the most persecuted around the world right now. If you look at places like China, Korea, the Coptic Christians, I’ve got a couple of good friends who are missionaries there. That is unreal, and all of you have probably seen the videos of ISIS beheading Christians. There is massive persecution, which, as we know, is the blood of the church spreading. I have to say, the blood of the martyrs does spread the church, but it doesn’t take away the fact that that persecution is something that we should be protesting.

There is a religious freedom alliance the administration supports. It’s an alliance of nations dedicated to confronting that religious persecution as it occurs around the world. The administration has dedicated $25 million to protect religious freedom and religious sites and relics. The Department of Justice has hosted its Summit on Combating Antisemitism (probably the second most persecuted group throughout history and probably right now has been the Jews). Those are all specific concrete things to counter the attack of, he doesn’t do anything and it’s all about him.

I’m going to end with a quote of what President Trump said, and I believe it truly comes from his heart, and again, we have to be careful to allow people to speak and to let them sometimes be accepted at face value. I try to picture any of the 15, 16, 25 whatever it is, Democratic candidates at this point for the 2020 election saying this, which Trump has said and repeated. “All children born and unborn are made in the holy image of God.” That may not be the gospel, but I think Trump saying it is very good news for unborn babies.

Thank you.

 

KN QUESTION D

Christian understanding of the scope of the gospel, and to what extent is president Trump fostering or not, your understanding of that scope? I looked at the beginning of each of the gospels, where Jesus kind of pronounces what the good news is. I won’t re-read those passages, but this is my reflection, based on those. The scope of God’s good news in Jesus Christ, the scandalous. Matthew announces Emmanuel, God with us. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, proclaimed the Kingdom of God has come near. John declares the logos became flesh and dwelt among us. We have seen his glory full of grace and truth. We don’t find God. God becomes one of us. God acts, becomes flesh, uniting spirit and body, not because of anything we do, but entirely because of who God is. This is the very good news, that God loves and comes to us, broken, wandering, rebellious and self-absorbed as we are. In response to God’s loving initiative, we are called to believe, and to be transformed by this entirely different reality of God’s loving presence among us.

If anything limits God’s activity, God’s presence among us, it is our denial, or our refusal of God’s loving presence through our insistence on deserving it, preferring to believe that some qualify and others do not. This refusal to accept God on God’s loving terms limits the transformational impact of God’s reach into our lives and the world, and Jesus often calls this blindness in the gospels. God insists on meeting us in our need alone, where different gifts are liberated in service to one another. Even those that our judgment and fears have alienated us from, untouchables and enemies who become the very interdependent body of Christ.

If God’s love does not extend to everyone, to all of creation, it is neither good, nor news. But if it does extend to all of creation, if God has become one of us, then we are transformed as we die to ourselves to be found with others, and God’s loving embrace, joining and God’s loving reclamation of the world. This gospel is totally good, especially for those in greatest need, as well as entirely and believable, especially for those of us who are self sufficient. We would sooner throw the grace and truth of Christ presence with us off a cliff, or nail it to a cross, then lose ourselves to the love of God, and the rabble that God’s of scandalously loves. In this framing of the gospel, President Trump, and I don’t have any… I don’t know, I struggle with this, like I said before, regarding what the separation of government and church, and such as, but in this framing of the gospel, President Trump, is also loved by God. Yet, he publicly embraces an unredeemed blindness of self-interest in disregard, contempt, abuse, hatred, toward anyone who impedes the further inflation of his ego.

It is my assessment, which I am somewhat uncomfortable with and ready to be challenged on, that coupled with the power invested in an unchecked abuse of his office, I believe President Trump is damning this world that God loves every day.

All of us struggle to receive, and live in God’s loving embrace, but president Trump seems to be sprinting in the opposite direction on steroids, feeding on the attention it brings him. And I would say that’s particularly in the way that he is quick to self-aggrandize and disparage others. If I were concerned with the things God is concerned with, I wouldn’t give his antics as much attention as I do, but as a citizen of the U.S., in the world, I do think we need to stop empowering him.

 

LS QUESTION D

My idea of the scope of the gospel? I looked at it, I didn’t put as much thought into what scope meant, but I looked at it as what’s the purpose of the gospel? So, I see the problems of this world, as in poverty or sickness or oppression or whatever we may speak about, are all symptoms. The root cause of those symptoms is sin. The only answer or the remedy to this root cause is the gospel of salvation.

The social gospel only seeks to put a bandaid on the symptoms, but it does not solve the root cause of the problem, which is sin. It is not the purpose of the church to work to eliminate social ills, but instead to preach the word of God which brings his people to faith.

The purpose of the gospel flows out of our thankfulness to God when we are saved from our sin. Matthew 25 is often spoken of, and it was not written as a blueprint for salvation through works or through social works, nor should it be employed as such. It is not an argument for preaching the gospel through our actions alone, but rather that our actions authenticate the gospel we preach.

And those actions must be prioritized towards those who suffer, our fellow believers, so please care for other believers because Jesus commanded us to. Realize that a lack of care for fellow believers may point to a lack of our saving faith and preach the gospel with words because they are always necessary.

This is not to say that we are not to love people and to live justly and to care for them and minister to people who have been treated unfairly, unkindly and mercilessly. As Christians, of course we should do that. We are to be known by our love, love to one another and love to the whole world and we are to be as Christ, caring for them, meeting their needs. But this is the result of salvation. The question is: Is the social gospel a part of the saving gospel? Or is caring for people a result of the gospel?

If we have a non-biblical view of the kingdom of God or of eschatology, meaning the end times, such as pre or post millennial, we will have an incorrect view of the purpose of the church. A post-millennial view often leads people to think that the church’s mission is to Christianize the world.

This idea was first promoted by Abraham Kuyper. This idea that the gospel is a means to save people from their sins got replaced with trying to fix the ills of society without fixing that root cause. Sin. As a side note, I have been in Amsterdam. The Christianizing of that society did not work. There is nothing Christian in Amsterdam. Here are some verses that speak about what I think the gospel is: from Matthew Four, “From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”;  from Matthew 16, “Then Jesus said unto his disciples, if any man will come unto me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For so whoever will save his life shall lose it. And whoever shall lose his life for my sake will find it.” From Romans One, which is a great verse on what the gospel is, Paul says “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.” The next part of this passage gives a definition of what that gospel is: “For it is the power of God unto salvation. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written, the just shall live by faith.”

Also, in Romans 10 we read, “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed, and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent.” So, these verses speak about what the purpose of the church is; it is to preach the gospel. And as we saw earlier, the gospel is to bring people to repentance, to bring salvation, salvation being forgiveness of sin.

Again, I struggle, as we spoke about earlier, how this fits in with Trump and the government. Because I certainly do not feel the government has any purpose in my view of the gospel. The only thing I would feel positive about what Trump has done, as he certainly has not made it impossible for the church to preach that gospel. You do not have to look very far in this world to see many countries where that is not true anymore. Therefore, I give great thankfulness and eternally grateful for that.

Thank you.

 

LN QUESTION D

Christian understanding of the scope of the gospel. I struggled with the meaning of the word “scope.” But I think that’s probably what makes the whole inquiry worthwhile, because it’s a simple concept until you begin to think about it. So, does the scope mean how would I apply the gospel or how effective is the gospel and in what arenas, or what is in fact the meaning of the gospel by those who receive it? So, I messed around with the meaning of scope for a long time, but I finally settled on an answer. Beginning, again, chronologically in the old Testament, Micah 5:8, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk with your God.” Originally in Israel, this was in-house because it was their job under the covenant to let the world know that the world may know that they were to be a testimony worldwide to God’s work within their nation.

But then we come into the New Testament era. In James 1:27 we have a similar concept. “Religion that God accepts is to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” It did occur to me as I read that that we do usually read the first half of that verse, “Look after the orphans and the widows,” and “To prevent one’s self from becoming polluted” hasn’t been a major concern for most Christians in recent memory, but that’s beside the point. In the New Testament era, we have the Great Commission. As some people now interpret the Hebrew, the Great Commission is: “And as you go, be my witnesses, teaching them to do all that I have shown you.” And I think that has evidenced itself historically with Christianity being involved in the construction of hospitals, benevolent societies, charities, schools, colleges, training centers, mission, work, disaster relief, third-world assistance, and that is then to assist, but not to dominate or destroy culture, hopefully.

Besides using scripture to try to decide on the scope of the gospel, I also like to think about people and institutions. The people I would point to would be Mother Teresa. She basically took the position that the institutional church doesn’t really get the job done, and the social gospel doesn’t work, but it makes us feel really good. Her idea is what’s been coined as a phrase, “Faithful presence.” Each one, save one, each one, be kind. If God wants to prosper that work, he will because he is able to do it all. So, as long as we’re faithful, faithful presence would be the concept that I would really endorse. In terms of institutions, I think locally of Atlas, Bethany, Bethesda, Habitat, JFA. All of those efforts are within the scope of the gospel to spread the love of Jesus to everybody that needs help.

President Trump is providing verbal and regulatory support for the private sector to exercise their vision of assistance, not wanting bigger governmental intrusion and control. I like that idea. Everybody likes to talk about who’s in the swamp and who’s cleaning the swamp. I see the swamp as that large bureaucracy of unelected administrators and huge government agencies who want to run our lives because they’re smarter and better than the rest of us, and I’m not sure that they’ve made a lot of progress when I look at education, health, justice initiatives. I wonder if it isn’t time to go back and try the private sector again, and that’s the attitude and the situation where each person having a faithful present might be able to work. I say, just give us each room to live out our convictions to do our part as we go to reach those who need to hear about Jesus.

 

SE QUESTION D

In my view, the scope of the gospel is wider than the imagination of the church. Even the early church was wrapped up in determining who was in and who was out, having to be lured away regularly by Paul and Peter from the temptation to draw dividing lines. The world has a way of calling us toward division. Division based on certainty of a moral code, citizenship status, political position, and even on ridiculous things like social media memes about the color of a dress. The church is called to unity, to let go of our differences and embrace our mission. This does not mean to going to a homogenous state of being, but rather to go forward with all our diversity of thought and being, staying defined as ourselves while staying connected as followers of Christ. We are one body with many parts.

I confess that I’m guilty of drawing lines. I’m guilty of deciding where God’s redemption is possible and or impossible. I’m guilty of prescribing my own ideas as to who Jesus is rather than being curious about how God is at work in the world already, and where I can be an active partner with God in that work. Politicians win on division. They call us into their tribal camps. They tell us to follow them and to mock the other tribe. Look at these deplorables. Look at those snowflake libtards. This is where my deep skepticism rests. Why would I follow any of these people? I see lost folks seeking power to gain control of the world and create order in their own way, in whatever way seems wisest to them. Why would I sign on to any of these policies? Is this the gospel I seek with all my heart? No, I think it’s a distraction, but perhaps there is hope.

Perhaps God is at work in government and my cynicism is a blinder. Perhaps God can and wants to redeem governments. I honestly have no idea and I lack the vision to see it, but I do trust Jesus. I trust that Jesus continues to incarnate love and peace in ways and in places I never imagined were possible. So why not trust that if anyone could redeem such a beast as government, it would be Jesus. How could this happen? Who is doing this work? How could we engage in the work of redemption and hold fast to our convictions? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I am curious.

Ultimately, I believe the gospel is finding freedom in Christ through transformation. This is the call to discipleship, a life of self-reflection, authentic community and alignment with the way of Christ, a way of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control, so that we may begin living our lives as Jesus would if Jesus were living in our lives. So wherever there is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self control, I will celebrate. Wherever they are lacking, I will get curious about how I can show up in that moment or space and work to incarnate these fruits.

 

TA QUESTION D

I think the message of the gospel is reconciliation and love, and I think the scope is boundless. As a Christian—particularly as a Christian in the Reformed tradition—I believe there is no part of creation, human or otherwise, that God does not will to flourish and seek to reconcile to God’s self and God’s perfect plan. “Every square inch,” right?

I think a picture of the gospel in action is in Matthew 25 where Christ makes clear that sharing the gospel starts with meeting practical, material needs: providing food and drink to the hungry and thirsty, welcome to the stranger, clothing to the naked, presence to the sick or imprisoned.

The needs expressed in Matthew 25 are literal, physical needs, but I think they apply figuratively as well: A person can have enough food and drink but still be malnourished emotionally, relationally or spiritually. Welcome for the stranger can mean shelter for a visitor from another country, but it can also mean acceptance for someone who is strange, different or marginalized. Clothing the naked is akin to offering dignity to someone who feels shame. And visiting the sick or imprisoned can apply to those who are heartsick or imprisoned by metaphorical bars.

President Trump feigns knowledge of the Bible to score political points, but I see little evidence he understands or feels called to live according to the gospel either personally or in his public life. Now I know that presidents swear an oath to the Constitution, not to Scripture. Nonetheless, even while they did it imperfectly, I believe some past presidents had a more authentic faith than Trump—Jimmy Carter, George H.W. and George W. Bush and Barak Obama all come to mind—and I think they genuinely tried (and often struggled with how) to bring their faith to bear in their public life. I don’t agree with a lot of Vice President Pence’s policy positions, but I believe he would be a more gospel-minded leader than Trump. Trump’s “gospel” seems to be one of me, mine and money. And nothing else—certainly not the selfless sacrifice Christ calls us to.

That said, as I’ve acknowledged before, some of this administration’s policy achievements—like the prison reform measures that have been enacted—do align with my understanding of where and how God is at work in the world to bring about reconciliation and redemption. I don’t think a gospel impulse led to those reforms, but I celebrate them nonetheless.

 

TM QUESTION D

As I said before, I don’t know that I see president Trump as a particularly religious or Christian man, so I don’t necessarily believe that he’s doing anything to embrace the gospel. He’s done some policy regarding religious freedom, and Mike Pence is a strong man of faith, but I don’t think that Donald Trump has cracked open a Bible in a very long time. I do want to say that I believe that Christianity has a strong place in the history of the United States, and it’s been used both for good and for evil in our past. It has, however, been a major building block of our culture.

I believe that there is a concerted attempt by parts of our society to weaken the tie that our faith has to our society. I think it’s a bad idea. I won’t say, on this note, that I don’t want other faiths included in our culture. I think that’s what makes us a great society, but incorporating other religions doesn’t necessarily mean Christianity needs to be given up or apologized for. I’m no philosopher, so I’m dealing purely in hypotheticals here. I do have a little trouble reconciling my belief that we can live in a pan-religious society with my understanding of how difficult it is to find common ground with those whom we disagree so fundamentally.

Thank you.

Session 3- Transcript

Full Transcript of Session 3

Leading Questions:

  • A. What is your Christian understanding of the meaning of “freedom” and to what extent is President Trump facilitating, or not, your concept of freedom?
  • B. What is your understanding as to the proper role of government in America, taking into account the “vision of the Founding Fathers,” and to what extent is President Trump facilitating, or not, your understanding?

 TM QUESTION A

I believe in freedom and that, through atonement for my sins, I have no bounds on the things that I should do. That is, no longer am I a slave to sin, but I have the right to do as I wish. That said, I don’t believe that there is a connection necessarily between my beliefs as a Christian regarding freedom and my understanding and beliefs in the way that government interacts with my freedom. I believe that freedom comes from God, that we, especially as a society, choose what our society looks like and with societal consensus, these ideas become our norms and our laws. As a Christian, I believe my faith in God and the morality I believe in that comes out of that faith is part of my contribution to the norms of society, but that government, by its very nature, is a secular enterprise incapable of embodying truly Christian values.

As far as President Trump is concerned, I don’t believe he is truly a believer. I don’t know that for sure, but I’m not sure I’ve seen the fruit I would expect to see for him to convince me of that. That having been said, as he has opened up the economy, I believe that he has opened up some more economic prosperity to the country, and I truly believe that allows people the opportunity to take care of themselves. And that’s the best way, in my opinion, to create freedom in a society. And in my view, dependence, whether that be on the government or somebody else to provide for you, is a certain level of enslavement.

 

TA QUESTION A

As a Christian, I understand that true freedom is found only in Christ, through his death and resurrection, which frees me to understand and experience brokenness, injustice, evil, even death—vandalisms of Shalom, as I heard a pastor called them recently at a funeral—as only temporary conditions. I am free to be unafraid and expansive in extending grace because in the end, Christ wins, and all that is not as it should be will eventually be made right. Because I am free, I believe I am responsible for spreading the freedom among others, and I think this may be analogous to ensuring freedom—liberty—as a central aim of our government.

Freedom, of course, is not anarchy. When my freedoms impinge on another’s and I don’t curb them myself, someone, or some government, must step in to ensure the most people possible enjoy as much freedom as possible. Sometimes this means governments remove restrictions to freedoms, but other times restrictions are necessary to ensure another’s freedoms aren’t trampled while I’m expressing mine. This gets dicey, of course, depending on what freedoms one prizes. One might value being free of air polluted by burning coal or environments degraded by mining, while another might value the freedom that comes from a secure mining job and booming local economy for a beloved community that otherwise may shrink and disappear.

One job of a president I think is to keep the story of freedom alive in our imaginations. Doing so requires a well-informed understanding of our history and the freedoms our founding fathers and mothers came here to establish and protect, as well as the course corrections—emancipation, civil rights—that we’ve made as a nation to ensure more freedoms for more citizens. It requires an intellect capable of understanding nuance and translating that to clear, inspiring calls to action on behalf of the common good.

In addition to frequently advocating for violating the freedom of the press, President Trump doesn’t seem to understand or value concepts like the common good, because pursuing the common good requires compromise and collaboration and isn’t measured in winners and losers. Trump’s conception of freedom seems to be more about winning than about justice and equality. He does advocate for religious freedom for Christians, which earned some praise from evangelicals, but he seems unconcerned for the religious freedoms of those who aren’t Christian and aren’t as politically well organized as the religious right.

 

LS QUESTION A

I will take a little different perspective regarding the Christian idea of freedom. One verse that I think of is in First Timothy two, which also speaks about some other parts of government: “I exhort the, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men,” and verse two, “for Kings and for all that are in authority.” The last part of that verse is what I think of as what a Christian is looking for from freedom in the sense of what government can give. It says that, “We may lead a quiet and a peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.” I think that is my view of what I look for from a government perspective of giving me the freedom that I need.

The Reformed view on prayer for government is that we should be praying for our Kings, as this verse speaks of, but our main view is praying that we will always have the freedom to worship. That, is being taken away in many parts just to the North of us in Canada. That is a very real thing. There have been ministers that have been put in jail for speaking the truth.

The Reformed view also speaks of the three forms of unity, one of them being the Belgic Confession. I went through that in a Bible study. It’s a great confession, but it is amazing when I think of how it was written in the context it was written. It was written, if you know the history, by Christians who were being severely persecuted by the Roman church in Spain. They were being put to death or being hung on crosses, their tongues screwed down, but they wrote the Belgic Confession to point out that they were not rebels.

They spoke very clearly that they wanted to and they would obey the government in all laws that they could obey, but they also said, “We offer our backs to strikes. We offer our tongues to knives. We offer our mouths to gags, and our whole bodies to fire rather than we deny the truth of God’s word.” So to me, that is what I think of when I speak and when I think of freedom, not in the perspective that you guys all spoke of, which is very true, but freedom in the sense of what I look for as a Christian from the government.

In light of that, I do view Trump being a very good proponent and very helpful in giving us that freedom, keeping that freedom and pushing back against what we saw in the last administration definitely taking away some of that freedom that Christians had in this land. So I would say he’s doing a great job in giving that type of freedom.

 

KN QUESTION A

I guess I love scripture word studies. I’ve reviewed all biblical passages referring to freedom or liberty, Old and New Testaments. Not as much as I would’ve suspected, but it reminded me of some critical themes. First, not many Old Testament references. I suspect many more references to justice in the Old Testament, but those I found seemed rooted in the freedom from Egyptian enslavement and Assyrian/ Babylonian exile. Our God is a God of the oppressed and marginalized, liberating them in order to renew their covenant relationship with God.

Second, year of jubilee is a large theme in the Old Testament in which all types of subjugation are reset. Three, true freedom, liberty is found in relation to God as Lord. Fourth, Jesus cites Isaiah 61 and Luke 4, to announce what his anointing means, referring to this Old Testament tradition of liberation, particularly for the oppressed, through a renewed relationship to God. “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, to provide for those who mourn in Zion.” Luke also inserts “and recovery of sight to the blind”.

Five, it’s a major theme for Paul (Romans, First and Second Corinthians, practically the whole of Galatians, and a significant one for James and Peter as well. Though word search didn’t turn it up, a freedom from bondage is a clear theme in Hebrews also). A clear distinction is made between the bondage of the law versus the liberty found in God through Christ. Yet it’s also clear that we are to use our freedom to serve God through our service to others, not for our own liberty alone. We are bound to Christ who has freed us from the demands of the law in order to minister to others through the spirit. This is the essence of Paul’s argument about circumcision from Galatians. – “You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ. You’ve fallen away from grace. You were called to freedom. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Paul’s discussion of liberty around food sacrificed to idols in Romans and Corinthians is distinguished by the change in motivation we have for what we do rather than our actions themselves..Freedom in Christ makes it possible to choose either action, but the grace and love compelled by the spirit flows in consideration of what will build our brother and sister up rather than cause them to stumble. It’s not a me-focused legalism, but a love-powered consideration. James 2:12 sums that same ethic up nicely: “so speak, and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. I just think that’s a very interesting phrase, the law of liberty. For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.”

I’m inclined . . . just reflecting on those passages that I used Labor Day morning to look up . . . I’m inclined to think and act in terms of bondage to law and punishment versus freedom to pursue my self-interest, not abiding in Christ in a manner that is marked by fullness of freedom and loving neighbor with the love that I had been loved with by God. Honestly, I think it’s hard to believe that God’s strategy of no condemnation, Romans 8:1, and radical reliance to live in such grace and love actually works in terms of good behavior. For example, Paul was liberated from prison by a miracle and stayed put. That’s hard to imagine. But I’m quite convinced the biblical vision and Christ’s call, in fact, it’s exactly what should distinguish us as “little Christs”.

To what extent is President Trump fostering or not that vision of freedom? It seems to me that he represents an exaggerated example of the human predisposition to enshrine his own interests at the cost of others. It seems he is using his power for himself, not in service to or in collaboration with most any others, and to the extent he is taking any other interest to heart (even these seem quite self-interested), it tends towards a cynical pandering to power and hate, treating the law as an expression of his own opinions and demonizing or scapegoating those who get in the way or who can be exploited.

The one exception to that that comes to mind may be his efforts to stack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges, but I find it hard to believe that he does that as a matter of moral conviction as much as a powerful political wedge. Personally, I struggle with how judgmental/unforgiving I am of President Trump. He’s a fallen human being like me in need of God’s transformational love and mercy. It concerns and convicts me that I lose sight of that so easily. God doesn’t. But I think a Christian view of “freedom” must be about liberation more than judgment, and others as loved by God rather than tools of my own interests. On that measure, President Trump as a person and as a leader falls egregiously and woefully short, in a manner characteristic of the worst tyrants that he seems to admire.

 

LN QUESTION A

Freedom for me as a Christian means living free, without an overlord or oppressor, enjoying civil liberty, the ability and the opportunity to make choices, choices in my occupation, choice of a mate, choice of a hometown where I choose to live, enjoying political autonomy without bondage or slavery, without a caste system or royalty, everybody equal. I see liberty as a measure of freedom, but within restraints. For me as a Christian, the first limit would be the moral law or we might call God’s creation ordinances. A second limitation on my freedom would be the state because it has jurisdiction of me as a person. A third set of limits that I would see myself being subject to would be the family structure as the basic economic and social structure for our life here in the states. As a fourth limit, I would see myself being limited by the social compact that we join in together as a nation state, the law of the land we might say, and that law of the land is to be obeyed as long as it doesn’t violate my conscience based on scripture and as long as it’s formed by the consensus in a represented democracy, the will of the people.

So, for me, freedom is living with choices between the guardrails and I suppose we even have two sets of guardrails. Usually the civil law is a broad set of guardrails. As a Christian, the moral law probably presents me with a narrower set of guardrails. I would like to think so. Otherwise, I’m going to be breaking the civil law a lot. According to 1 Corinthians 6:12, “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but I will not be brought under the power of any..” So, I see as a Christian, the freedom to submit to authority.

Galatians 5:13 was mentioned in some of our earlier questions that were listed by Harold. It says, as brothers we’re called to liberty, but not to use this as an opportunity for the flesh, but to love one another. Then verse 14 exhorts you to love your neighbor as yourself. So I think together it’s our obligation to help each other to flourish and what the government’s role is in that flourishing is a later discussion that we will have. How does Trump measure up? I think I admire the way he is pushing back on some things that are beyond the guardrails. I’m not sure I like the style. I don’t like the timing, but I do like the backbone.

Thank you.

 

MK QUESTION A

My understanding of freedom is going to be completely different than an unbeliever, but it would be similar to you in this room because I think we’re all believers. I think the current understanding of freedom, at least in a lot of our culture today, is unrestrained ability to do whatever we want. As a Christian, I would see freedom as godly restraint, the restraints set up by God’s rules, the owner’s manual. And so if you don’t understand scripture or if you don’t take scripture seriously, you don’t know the owner’s manual.

So for me, freedom is godly restraint. And when we study scripture, we see that the fences that God has put into place are really in good places. And so when we push up against those fences and we stop, that’s freedom. When we jump over those fences, in ways that some of you have mentioned,, we move away from freedom. We move into slavery. And so the great thing that’s difficult to understand, I think for unbelievers and sometimes for believers, is that the more we obey God’s rules, the freer we become and the more Christ-like we become, the more freedom we experience. And that would be an almost impossible thing for the world to understand. So that for me is freedom.

Now, how does Trump fit into all of that? It’s a difficult question. It’s complex, but I would speak in favor of what Trump is doing in this sense. Trump has recognized that Christians have been under attack, There has been pressure. Freedoms have been eroding. And I see this administration is starting to push back that erosion a little bit, push the sand dunes back a little bit, free up the roads again, but not just here.

We also need to consider international freedom of religion. That is something that is eroding quickly. The ability for Christians to worship around the world is under attack more now than it has been in decades and it’s becoming very, very difficult to be a Christian in a lot of places. And so this administration is starting to push back on that, which we haven’t seen in a while. And so in that sense, I would say Trump is doing some good things.

 

BE QUESTION A

Harold, thank you for framing this as our Christian perspective, because I think we’re all going to agree that the government, for the most part, either can’t or won’t facilitate what we think is a Christian perspective of freedom or a Christian perspective of government or a Christian perspective of anything. But as Christians, we can agree. The idea that we all start off as slaves to sin has been handled quite well by a number of you, So, I won’t go into that as I had thought I would.

But unlike those who’ve spoken so far, I was more pragmatic and less philosophical in my reflections. What I decided is that there’s two forms of freedom as Christians. We have freedom from, and we have freedom to. I listed some of the specific examples of the things that we are free from as Christians and that we should be free from in our society, and I feel like our society and our laws have fallen very short.

I believe that we should be free as Christians from paying taxes to kill unborn babies, I’ll touch more on that when I talk about what Trump has done in that area.

I feel that a Christian who owns a bakery should be free from making a cake with a message that he thinks is wrong. Jack Phillips has been put through the wringer, and there have been multiple lawsuits formed.

I believe that we should be free from calling a boy a girl or from referring to people by their made-up labels or pronouns. Because if someone has the right to identify as whatever gender he or she chooses, that does not supplant my right to say, “I see it differently.” I identify as someone who sees that there are only two genders as God created us, male and female.

I believe that as a Christian I do not have to accept any redefinition of sex or gender or marriage. The Bible makes it crystal clear, “Male and female he created them.” The Bible never speaks favorably of any sexual relationship outside one man and one woman. It doesn’t mean they didn’t exist and still don’t exist. It simply means that they were outside of his blessing.

I believe that I should be free to talk about the problems and the costs of illegal immigration without being labeled a hater or a racist or a bigot or a xenophobe; because the fact is, choices have consequences, and they put themselves and others at great risk when they come into our country illegally. There’s all kinds of statistics on the costs versus benefits. It’s simply unrealistic to ignore that, and it’s very unfair that we can’t have a conversation without name-calling.

I believe that medical professionals, and this has happened, being forced to assist in abortion is contrary to what should be allowed. Unless you work at a place where that’s the primary mode of operation, it should be your right to refuse that. It should be possible to be trained in this country as a doctor and not be forced to assist in abortion if that violates your moral code. Because, by the way, abortion is not healthcare.

Now we also have freedom to. I believe that we should have the freedom to worship freely, which we do, I think. That has not really been supplanted yet. But I also believe that we should have the freedom to state a position; to be able to give reasons and arguments; and when a person disagrees, that person should be compelled to do so reasonably and with arguments and with logic and with evidence. As I’ve said, that is not my experience. This group is an exception, and it’s facilitated by Harold’s rules and simply by the fact we’re sitting face-to-face, not behind a screen anonymously typing. So I don’t know how you regulate that, but right now I am not given the freedom to speak without being attacked. That is interesting.

Now what has Trump done? I just came up with four quick things. These are things, I believe, that do show him facilitating Christian freedom or freedom as I would define it. When he appointed two Supreme Court justices, there’s no guarantee how they will rule, and people sometimes surprise you once they’re appointed. But I do believe that they will attempt to go back to what the Constitution says, which is what I think is correct. Just frankly, there’s not one Democratic candidate that would not appoint judicial activists because of a different interpretation of what the Constitution is. I mean, that’s a difference in philosophy. If you think it’s correct to reinterpret, then, of course, that nomination of those candidates would make sense.

Going back to his State of the Union Address and frequently since, Trump has advocated strongly for the most basic freedom of all, the most important freedom of all, right to life for unborn babies. Trump has very wisely … I know wise and Trump is not something that we think of together, but he has wisely allowed Planned Parenthood to show that they really are only about abortion. They turned down $60 million rather than give up doing abortions. They are all about blood money. They are all about killing unborn babies. That is just indisputable; because they had the option, and they gave up that money rather than give up abortion.

Last but not least, Trump, by the kinds of vitriol that he has drawn to himself, has really exposed, the slavery that people are into. I’m going to label That “Trump derangement syndrome slavery.”. There are people that are just bound by that, and that is really the only thing they can ever see when they talk about him. I find that fascinating. They are just in chains and cannot ever see anything except for that. There are numerous posts I could give that show that.

 

SE QUESTION A:

My understanding of freedom is rooted in Christ. For once I was a slave to sin, a slave to the way of the world. My understanding of belonging was rooted in performance. My understanding of success and prosperity was rooted in positions of power and material possessions, but God, who loves me, my neighbors and all of creation lowered God’s self into humanity to show us a way of being in the world that brings life, not death. That brings wholeness, not destruction. That lifts up our neighbor instead of just ourselves. That creates peace, not chaos, war and violence.

My freedom is rooted in God’s incarnation as Jesus, which shows us God’s love for us. My freedom is in Jesus whose life shows us the way. My freedom is rooted in Christ death, which shows us what is required of us to be free. My freedom has hope because of Christ’s resurrection which shows us there is life when we die to ourselves and our own desires. Because of the incarnation, I trust that I am not alone in my suffering. Because of Christ’s life, I trust that the way of Christ is love. Because of Christ death, I trust that the way of Christ leads to the cross. Because of Christ’s resurrection, I trust that my only freedom is to die to myself and rest all of my identity in Christ. In Christ, I am fully alive and fully loved. This to me is freedom.

As a follower of Christ, with my identity rooted fully in Christ, I am free. I’m free to be alive in the world as a lover of my neighbors. Free of judgment from the world because God is my judge and Christ intercedes for me. Free from the need to amass power and wealth because my power comes from humbling myself to love the least of these, and wealth does not matter because God provides me with everything I need. In Christ, my citizenship is to the kingdom of God, a kingdom without borders where I’m free to love whoever I encounter regardless of the human laws that say otherwise.

I do not believe Trump is fostering my concept of freedom. I do not believe Trump nor any other human is capable of offering freedom because ultimately, as a Christian, I believe what this world has to offer will rust and decay but what Jesus has to offer is like a tree that flowers forever.

Thank you.

 

TM QUESTION B

As I said before, I believe that government is the summation of the consensus of the people and the norms are what create the culture and rules, and laws are the foundation of the government. I don’t believe it’s possible for government to be a truly Christian institution unless all the people who comprise the government are themselves Christians. I believe that government is best when it doesn’t interfere with people’s lives and I don’t think that the government should be in the business of providing things to individuals. I know programs like Social Security and Medicare are broadly popular, but they enslave people to the government because they create dependency.

What Donald Trump has done, which I’m grateful for, is to create a business environment where if you want a job, you can have every opportunity to find a job to fit your desires. We are in a time of unprecedented opportunity for those who want to take it. Wages are definitely rising. I’ve just been part of hiring somebody and we figured out that we were about a dollar an hour short on our initial offer. There’s a lot of economic prosperity right now. I believe the Founding Fathers expected people to sink or swim based on their own merits and desire to succeed. Now is the greatest time to do so in the last 80 years.

 

TA QUESTION B 

This morning I happened upon an article inspired by the Broadway show “What the Constitution Means to Me.” The article asked select others for their insights on the Constitution. I resonated most with Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe who said, “To me, the Constitution is more verb than noun, less of a quest from a few inspired but flawed white men than a challenge to build a more perfect union, a fair and more equal nation.”

“Build a more perfect union, a fair and more equal nation.” Ideally, I think the proper role of government is to create, as our founding fathers did, and then sustain, as those in government are now called to do, a national culture within which both individual citizens as well as whole communities of citizens can flourish. That sustenance happens through laws and policies that promote the common good as well as through public servants who, also with a goal of serving the common good, demonstrate allegiance to country above self and political party through their words, actions, and advocacy. I think the proper role of government is to define and draw our attention to the common good, to inspire us to also want the best for the most people, and to know both when to get out of the way and when to step in to ensure that as a country we’re always striving toward the ideals expressed in the Constitution.

As a divisive president—ill-informed, impulsive, and seemingly unprincipled—Trump doesn’t honor the ideals of our founding fathers for a more perfect union, a fair and more equal nation. The prevailing theme of his words and actions seems to be me-first, not country-first. To be fair, this is most true of his communication, especially when it is unscripted. In cases where government actions have demonstrated a country-first aim, I credit members of Trump’s administration more than him and his personal agenda for the country.

 

LS QUESTION B

I Will share my Christian understanding of the proper role of government in America and the role of Christians in government. I already spoke about the Belgic Confession in the context in which it was written. Article 36 of the Belgic Confession talks about government or the magistrates. I’ll read from a portion of that.

“We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind ,hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates, willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies to the end that the dissoluteness of man might be restrained and that all things carried.” This, then, is from the verse I read earlier: “and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose he, God, hath invested the magistery with the sword for the punishment of the evildoer and for the praise of the them that do well.” It quotes there from I Peter 2:13,14 and then also I Timothy 2:1,3.

So, my idea of the proper role of government is very, very limited in the sense that, as our confession speaks of, the magistrate was given the sword for punishment, but also for protection. But then it also was given to the praise of them that do well.

I was reading something that I found very interesting about the rights that people have. It talked about a positive right and a negative right when we’re trying to view what the Bible speaks of. A positive right is a right to have something given to you. An example would be, if healthcare is a positive right, then the state has an obligation to give healthcare to everyone. An example of a negative right would be a right to be protected from harm while someone seeks to get  healthcare; they should be protected from discrimination or unfairness.

I think if you read through the Bible, and you look at the contexts relative to the word government, It gets tricky when we separate the church from government. Obviously, in the New Testament where it’s speaking about Israel, that would not be a view of government that I want. That would be a view of government that God is in control and not man. So the view of government in the Bible is very much a negative view. The government is there to keep us safe and to give us rights, but it’s not there to take and to force me to give rights to other people.

Somebody already spoke about taxation. I would say that our view of love as Christians is that it is something that we give voluntarily. So, if our view of taxation is that it enables a government or the state to care for the poor, I believe that is a coercive type of love, because it forces me through taxation to distribute what I have to help somebody else. I don’t think that is a Biblical view of love. A Biblical view of love is that I would give of myself freely and not be forced into that. So, I view that as a danger of taxation; an example of government going outside its limited role.

Another view of government is attributed to George Washington: “Government is like a fire. It is very good when it is small and it is controlled. But when fire becomes big and destructive, it is no longer a good tool.” I think that is a great example of a small government. And as long as it is kept into that control, it does much good.

Maybe surprising to some of you, I do not view the United States’ laws and the Constitution necessarily to have been based upon Biblical truths. If we look at what the Declaration of Independence says, we read, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” And the idea of there being self-evident natural laws is also spoken of in the Belgic Confession. The founders of America based their beliefs about government on natural laws. The Declaration of Independence does not say that these truths that are herein are grounded in the Bible. It is very clear that they did not do that. They believed that these truths were self-evident, based upon natural laws that are all around us.

I also think the view of proper government is to be found in what we think of as the “United States of America.” It is United States, it is not the one big government that we have today, it is states’ rights that the founders went after. The founders, if you study history, hated tyranny. A definition of tyranny is oppressive government. That’s what they fought against. That’s what the revolution was against; a government that was oppressive and made them do things. So, our Constitution and Bill of Rights are written around giving the power to the people.

Relative to how President Trump is facilitating my view as to the role of government, I believe he  has certainly supported these ideas. But I also would say that, as the gentleman before me said, he has gone in a direction of spending money in a sense that is not in the form of limited government. We are spending money on things that do not fit my view with what government should be doing.

 

KN QUESTION B

My “Christian understanding” (which I put in quotes because I think it’s interesting to think about a Christian understanding of government because of reasons that may become clear), my Christian understanding of the proper role of government in America is that Christians should exercise our rights as citizens to uphold liberty and justice for all, but I don’t believe that “the vision of the founding fathers” was particularly Christian. They established a constitutional system of government that is quite remarkable in the history of the world, a system of checks and balances that protects against any ruler seizing unchecked power,, actually valuing those safeguards against abuse of power more than getting things done, and ensuring the rights of citizens to freely pursue their interests without hindrance of government or other citizens. I don’t personally believe that we can be good without God, so to speak. Our system itself is a good mechanism, but not virtuous in and of itself. It’s the character of the people which should guide the system toward our common good (and I think for the common good of the world), yet to the extent we pursue our own individual or national “happiness”, in quotes, alone, our collective wellbeing will implode. Nevertheless, the separation of church and state is a very important constitutional principle. While I believe Christians should bring their values to bear in the political sphere, we must do it democratically with respect for other’s rights as well.

The US constitutional government cannot be reasonably expected to enforce a moral standard that is religiously established, but it is just as erroneous to expect citizens to leave their religious value convictions out of the public square. As we lose the ability to reason with one another regarding the common good in our political and governmental processes (as a matter of character and conviction), our government is just as susceptible of doing wrong as of doing good, but our system of checks and balances should protect us from the abuse of any governmental power, unless the electorate chooses it.

President Trump is … and I would add, I haven’t edited this very well, but our constitution also ensures that even if the electorate chooses that we still have rights that need to be enforced. President Trump is, in my opinion, abusing his responsibility as chief executive of the USA in order to implement his fickle wishes with little attention to the welfare of others, particularly the oppressed. Rather than respect our constitutional form of government, he seeks to subvert it to his own ends, and as such, poses a threat to our form of government itself.

Under the present circumstances and what is known about how he has done this, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress, I believe, to bring articles of impeachment so that our system can try him for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” against the U.S. I don’t expect such proceedings to actually remove him from office prior to 2020 since the senate majority is too partisan in its support for him to vote for that, regardless of any evidence, but not to do so is an abdication of their constitutional responsibility for the sake of political expediency, which is a terrible erosion of our system of checks and balances.

 

LN QUESTION B

Here are my reflections on the Christian view of the proper role of government in the USA. I believe in limited government. I’ve said that before. I think things like national defense, the war powers, protection of boundaries, resolving disputes between the states, our common currency, mail delivery, the commerce clause, of course, the criminal law to restrain evil, and rectifying and regulating social evils are proper functions of government. I think that sometimes government needs to correct some of the things that it causes itself. Discrimination, substandard housing, helping with the curing of disease, alleviating poverty, having some role in regulating education for the common good of the country are the things that I think government should be involved with, but they should do so in a way that’s compatible with the moral law of God. I see natural law as a part of God’s law, as a creation ordinance.

But I think the people are sovereign in a contemporary civil nation state, not the state itself, as an institution. I think we’ve come to the point in the country where the state almost has a personality. It’s almost a living thing. It has its tentacles into everything that we do. And I believe government should be a function, not institution, if you get the comparison. And I believe that the setting of limits should be done by the legislature, not by bureaucracies or by the Supreme Court.

In terms of how Trump is faring, my biggest problem is his use of the executive order. The founding fathers never saw the executive order as a way to override legislation. But I can see some justification for doing it because we haven’t, for the last 10 to 15 years, had very much effective legislation. Basically, we’re living with gridlock. And so again, as I’ve said before, I admire his backbone, but I detest some of his methods because the founding fathers certainly didn’t see the use of an executive order to run the country. So I’m in a quandary. I see it being used sometimes for good, sometimes for ill by the last several presidents. But again, I think it’s a harbinger of how stuck we are. I don’t like being stuck.

 

MK QUESTION B 

I’m going to start with Abraham Kuyper’s idea about “Sphere Sovereignty.” It’s not a new idea but he may have coined those words. For Kuyper, “Sphere Sovereignty” means that there are different spheres where people exercise sovereignty. For example, in my role as a teacher at Dordt, I have some authority in the classroom and I can exercise that. But if I were going to go look in the dorm windows and say, “Hey, how come you’re not in bed yet, it’s 10:00 pm?” That’s outside of my sphere; I have no sovereignty there and I shouldn’t be doing that.

What, then, are the proper spheres for church and for government? That’s open for debate and we could have a good long discussion about that. I think government has certain responsibilities that are consistent with biblical teachings as to what government is all about: justice, border security, taxation, military, protection of its people.

There are other areas of responsibility where the church is supposed to be in charge, helping the poor, the widow, the least of these. What happens when one of those groups drops the ball or vacates their sphere? What happens when the family no longer cares for their own kids, no longer feeds their kids; someone has to step in and do that and I think that’s the dilemma we’re in.

I think a big part of the blame lies with the church. We’ve vacated a lot of our responsibilities. We haven’t lived out our calling properly. We’re not living that kingdom vision properly overall, which means there are huge gaps, and so who’s going to step in and do it?

Logically, it falls to the government. So, if you have poor people who need food and if the church isn’t doing their job the government’s probably going to do it. I think the government has overstepped way too far, feeding breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and doing a whole lot of other things. But again, maybe it’s because we’re not there as the church doing our job. There’s some question there in my mind about who should pick up the slack, and I think it’s the church but we’re not doing it.

With regard to Trump, I’m in favor of some of the things Trump is doing as I’ve already mentioned. I’m very much in favor of border security because I think that’s a huge part of government’s role, and that hasn’t been done well lately. I also think limited government is very, very important, and that gets back to our discussion of sphere sovereignty of, “But where do we pull back?” I’m not in favor of Trump because he’s spending even more than the last president spent and we’re going into debt even more than the last president put us into debt. In that sense, I’m very much opposed to some of the things Trump is doing; government seems to be getting bigger, not smaller.

Maybe it’s a wishy-washy answer but I have a mixed bag in my view of Trump on this one. There’s some things where I’m thinking, “Yes, keep going,” and those other things I’m thinking, “We’ve got to fix this.” Part of the answer of we’ve got to fix this is that the church has to step up, recognize its sphere, and get back to work.

 

BE QUESTION B:

Government exists because of sin. When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, not only did it wreck their vertical relationship with their creator, it ruined their horizontal relationships with each other. Not only did they hide from God, they in a sense began the blame game of it’s not my fault. So government exists basically to protect us from our own worst impulses, to protect us from each other, and ironically even to protect us from ourselves. The 10 Commandments were the original government long before there was a King. They set boundaries and pretty much every society that has successfully set rules has modeled itself somewhat upon them. So, I would like to review what those rules say and how laws properly reflect those in our society today and all these laws were of course made by our government at one time or another. We have laws for Commandment number six, thou shalt not kill.

I should add, there were times when the first table of the law, which deals with our relationship with God also had many prohibitions, like nothing open on Sunday, those kinds of laws we all remember, but those are kind of gone by the wayside so I won’t focus on them. I’ll look at the second table of the law, the Fifth Commandment, honor your father and your mother, is honored more by the breach because we understand that to mean that we should show respect for proper authority and that has been totally broken down in our society. We don’t have respect for our elected leaders, starting with president Trump. We don’t have respect for parents the way we used to. There’s not respect for teachers. There’s not respect for police officers. Think about the recent case of water balloons being thrown at police in New York City. I think respect has been lost.

Commandment number six, thou shalt not kill. We do have laws against that as we should. I think we’d all agree on that. I would like to find the common ground of us agreeing that abortion is always wrong, as was said by one of us besides me at a different meeting, because abortion is always murder and it also needs to be outlawed. But that’s something I think you’ll want to talk to me about or get some more information on. There used to be laws against all kinds of sexual things that would be covered by thou shalt not commit adultery. When I teach Sunday school or little kids I teach adultery is behaving as if you’re married when you’re not, or not behaving as if you’re married when you are. Most of these laws have been taken off the books.

But one could argue that because the only God ordained sexual relationship occurs with one man and one woman in what we now call marriage, that would sort of answer how I feel about other relationships that go on. I believe they are violations of the Seventh Commandment. The eighth and tenth Commandments go together. Why do you steal? Because you covet. We do have laws against those things. Not really laws against coveting, but coveting is the thought that leads to the action. Then Commandment number nine; thou shalt not bear false witness or lie. We obviously have laws against perjury, laws against slander and libel.

Now, what has Trump done to facilitate all of this? He has spoken strongly for the right of unborn babies and as he continues to do so, he is upholding the Sixth Commandment: thou shalt not kill.

He himself has violated the Seventh Commandment. I would be interested to know to what extent he has done so while in office because we do have a God of second chances. I’m more concerned about what people have done while in the White House and there would be certain presidents that would come to mind. I do believe that the past is the past and if it didn’t occur while he was president, perhaps it’s not fair to make that a huge concern at this point.

In terms of Commandments eight and ten, there is a sense in which excessive taxes are stealing from the people who have worked hard and we would have to work really hard to decide which taxes are unfair or how much taxing is too unfair, but I think that’s a fair thing to point out –The idea that it is okay to take as much as you can from someone by passing laws that make higher taxes.

I think that really is unjust. But on the other hand, there are programs that aren’t sufficiently supported. I don’t have the answer to that one at all. I think Trump is trying to reduce taxes, which all of us agree should happen until it’s our favorite program that gets cut. So that one’s a dilemma and then thou shalt not bear false witness. Trump calls out the fake news media. The Brett Kavanaugh hearings are an example of people wanting to believe something that fit their narrative and without really any evidence or proof. Consider also the Covington kid. He was attacked mercilessly and, basically, the thing that he did wrong was to look like a stupid teenager. I’ve seen rude teenagers and believe me, he was not being rude. He was just awkwardly standing there. But his three sins were: wearing a red hat, being Catholic and opposing abortion.

But the narrative that was fed was a huge lie that he was being rude and abusive to an elder who turned out to lie about all sorts of things. The media is full of lies. Politicians lie.

As you guys might guess, I conclude by saying the biggest lie of all that I believe our government needs to change and that I believe Trump is trying to change, is the lie that abortion is reproductive freedom. Abortion is my body, my choice. Abortion is healthcare, and that is not a lie without cost. I’ll keep repeating that stat. A million babies a year die because people believe that lie.

 

SE QUESTION B

Within my understanding of the bible, I understand governments to be God-allowed, human-developed institutions of authority over a group of people. If all of creation is groaning for Shalom, if we are indeed crying out for our reality to be redeemed back to the garden where we commune with God, then government, as I understand it, is not and was not part of the original design of experiencing Shalom and community with God.

Before Israel had a King, God’s people went where God led and structured themselves as God-structured them. In the times after the first king, God’s people ordered themselves as human leaders saw fit. This led to the exploitation of labor, the neglect to the poor and idolatry. All these things led to the fall of the nation of Israel. Post-exile, we find Israel anxiously awaiting a Messiah. They anticipate a coming king, a political leader who will strike down its enemies and restore their nation to power and prosperity, but as Christians, we know that this never happens.

Christ, our Messiah, comes as a peasant baby, does his ministry outside of the political and religious institutions and is murdered because of his radical behavior and his claim to be God’s son. If God saw authority on earth as needing to come from government, God would have sent a king and not a servant. But God shows us that all authority comes from God, and our role is not to amass power and wealth, but to love and serve humbly.

In the time following the Ascension, the followers of Christ busy themselves preaching hope and meeting the physical needs of others. If establishing a government order was important and if obeying the laws of the government were important, early church leaders would have directed one another to do so. Instead, we see them regularly jailed for living out the gospel and encouraging one another to cease working for the state in any capacity. This is my biblical understanding of the role of government, of the role government plays as a follower of Christ within the kingdom of God, which is here and now.

What brings me peace about God is that God creates out of order, intentionality and love. What God creates is good. What God creates is not chaos. What God creates brings life. One of the things that breaks my heart about humanity is our tendency to create systems that are not good for us or for our neighbors, systems that enslave us, systems that run us ragged, systems that do not bring us life. Often we create out of our perceived need. We create not knowing that another way is possible. We create blind to all God has already created and provided.

In my view and in my experience, this fixation on creating our own way of ordering life will leave us frustrated and lonely. Our dysfunctions have a way of giving birth to awful things. I lament our history of enslavement, exclusion and violence. It gives me deep, deep sadness. I do not see any biblical evidence, though I humbly admit that there may be arguments out there that I have not explored, but I have not personally seen biblical evidence that suggests capitalism and or operating a nation as a democratic republic are the way of bringing about prosperity and protection. Biblically, I see evidence that God provides for our needs and that the way of Jesus brings life, not necessarily protection.

So as far as our founding fathers, I see them as flawed humans like the rest of us who gathered together to create a system of being for a group of colonies inhabiting a land that was previously foreign to them. They saw the injustice inherent in a distant monarchy, but missed their own injustices they committed every day. And isn’t it just like us humans to do this, to cry foul on the specs we observe while missing our own logs completely? I lament this in my own life.

This inherent inability to know what is good, to know what is just, to do what is right all the time and order these things for others is what gives me great hesitancy in addressing the proper role of government. I equate the concept of government with the concept of authority. What is the government authorized to do? Even narrowing this down to facilitating infrastructure leaves us with the opportunity to red line housing, lay pipelines through reservations and neglect regulations that protect our planet. How would Jesus, who loved his neighbor to the point of the cross, plan an interstate, transport oil or regulate an offshore drill?

And so while founding our nation, I believe the founders missed an opportunity to see folks unlike themselves as their neighbors and created founding documents and systems that neglected large groups of people that inhabit land alongside of us. The impact of their blindness is still with us today. And to this day we continue to advocate for our own vision of America with human blinders, continuing in that heartbreaking human behavior of putting ourselves before others.

As I’ve stated before, and it’s evident in my response here that I’ve been leaning more and more towards the paradox of Christian anarchy. In the meantime, I live in a world with nations that have established governments, so I choose to pray, to cry out, to hope for what I do not yet see. I pray for global leaders that they may have the courage to prioritize compassion over might, justice over power, humility over material gain and peace over violence.

When I look at the United States as a nation, my heart aches. This is not merely because of the man who sits in the office, the oval office. Donald Trump is only one man. This is an America that has not been built by the rhetoric of Donald Trump, but by 400 years of systemic exploitation and lust for power. There has not been ever, in my view, a president who rejects the foundation of America for a vision like Jesus’ when he proclaimed the Jubilee in his hometown in Nazareth and was nearly thrown off a cliff, which is in Luke 4, which was mentioned earlier tonight. In my view, this is because to see your neighbors as Jesus sees them, to love as Jesus loves, to show up in the world as Jesus does, is to find yourself at the hands of the state ready to execute you.

The bible teaches that if we love, as Jesus loves, the world will reject us. And yet we see a powerful movement of Christians calling for us to whet our visions with the visions of those who hold power in America. To me, this is an egregious heresy, one that is destroying the church and one that has always plagued the church. But as for me, I trust in the proper role of authority. In my view, authority belongs to God and God alone. Since the first king of Israel to the founding of America, human rulers and power brokers have used exploitation and violence to gain wealth and power. But I see a different vision of power and authority in the incarnation, life in ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. My only hope is in Christ, my only allegiance is to the way of Christ and my only God is God alone.

 

Session 2 – Audio Recording

Session 2 – Transcript

Full Transcript of Session 2

Leading Questions:

  • What is your vision for the future of America?
  • To what extent do you believe President Trump is facilitating, or not, the accomplishment of your vision for the future of America?

Participant 1

I speak in the vein of a prophet. I’m a communications professor, so I’m using a communicator’s approach.” I begin with four bullets, taken from Trump tweets.

First, “How could a dummy dope like Harry Hurt, who wrote a failed book about me but doesn’t know me or anything about me, be on TV discussing Trump?”

Second, “Light-weight Senator Rand Paul should focus on trying to get elected in Kentucky, a great state which is embarrassed by him.”

Third, “Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain. He was terrible at debate.”

Fourth. “Frank Luntz is a low-class slob who came to my office looking for consulting work and I had zero interest. Now he picks anti-Trump panels.”

In a Monty Python skit, one guy asks another, “Is this the room for an argument?” The other one pauses and then replies, “I’ve told you once.” First man disagrees, “No, you haven’t.” Soon the two are firing salvos back and forth, contradicting each other to the point of absurdity. Before long, they’re arguing about if they’re having an argument.

Communication is a symbolic act. When we use words, the words themselves are not the reality. I say apple. It’s not an apple. My word is a symbol to represent the apple. Communication in this symbolic sense is an incredibly powerful tool to create shalom or strife. Trump as president, has the bigger megaphone on the planet. As president, his most powerful tools to bring shalom, to bring peace, understanding, healing, and comfort are his words, the way he uses symbols, but Trump does just the opposite. Time and time again his symbolic representation of the world brings not shalom, but anger, division, and rage. His symbolic actions, the way he uses words breeds disagreements and disrespect for others, causing common courtesy and decency to evaporate. The impoliteness and rudeness is becoming absurd.

Augustine wrote that, “No country can be happy while the walls may still be standing, but the morals are collapsing.” My grief with a man like Trump in the White House is that he represents so clearly the bigger picture of where America is now at. There’s the old saying that the people get the leaders they deserve. I’m afraid we deserve Trump. Our nation’s problems are not his fault. Our gun issues were in place before his election. Abortion, sex trafficking, tension in the Middle East, misogyny, pornography, lack of respect and decorum. All these things were in place before Trump was elected. To be fair, I think we often blame him for these things, and that’s not right either. However, Trump’s personal character and communication style is often the very embodiment of what we see wrong with our nation.

I think we deserve Trump, but that doesn’t make it easier to accept him. I long for a leader that we don’t deserve. One whose own moral compass is so true and whose communication abilities are so refined and powerful and rhetorical practice that even the biggest detractors will look to this leader and acknowledge his or her greatness. Trump is so far from being that person, it’s not funny. I don’t even detect a whiff of oratorical, moral, rhetorical greatness in this man. Instead, I see hubris, narcissism, impatience, raw uncouthness. What I see is the leader that we deserve, and that makes me very, very sad.

Where I do support him is in the fact that he’s getting things done that matter to me, but even in 2019, the end does not justify the means. Socrates wrote this long ago, “Who does not know that words carry greater conviction when spoken of men by good repute than when spoken by men who live under a cloud, and that the argument which is made by a man’s life has more weight than that which is furnished by words.”

Democracy needs authenticity. We don’t have it in the White House now, nor in the previous administration. I can only hope and pray that the next administration understands the power of authentic communication and that as a nation we might actually deserve such a leader.

Participant 2

I’ve I had a busy week. I had every intention of writing something, writing an essay, but you’ll get a bullet point list of things that came to mind when I asked myself what is my vision for the future of America. I do think that the world needs, and I want the United States to be a model of, a thoughtful, well-meaning, functioning democracy. I actually also am in favor of limited government, but more than that I want responsible government. I do like low taxes, for example. But cutting taxes while running up the deficit seems irresponsible to me. Decisions that are made apart from each other don’t seem responsible.

I also recognize that I lead a life where I have the luxury of being okay with limited government. And I try always to maintain a pretty high degree of humility about people whose lives are so very different from mine, fellow Americans who live much less comfortable lives. As an example, I’m especially sensitive as I try to imagine the life of an under-educated ill-supported single mother and what she might need from limited government that’s different from what I need from limited government. I desperately want immigration reform. I think the current unwillingness to address the reality in favor of simply making pronouncements for political gain is just shameful. I also want prison reform. I think far too many people in our country are incarcerated. I think the system is decidedly unfair. I want reasonable gun reform. I’m not in favor of taking anyone’s guns, but the gun problem in this country is outrageous. I want infrastructure and clean energy investment. In a country with the resources that we have, to have bridges falling down or even just shoddy airports, it just seems ridiculous to me. And that seems like kind of a no-brainer for me and bi-partisan.

I appreciate the changes that the ACA made in terms of making healthcare more accessible; somewhat more accessible. I Certainly like the fact that insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions. I’d like to see that improved upon and certainly not eliminated. I’m heartened by increasing equality for women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ people. I worry that some of those efforts towards equality will go backward. Frankly it would be very heartwarming to me if the church were known as a leader in equality efforts for people who are disenfranchised, marginalized, oppressed. I wonder if there should be Supreme Court term limits or some other measure so that justices aren’t beholden to one party or the other for their lifetime appointment. I would like to see campaign finance reform. I would like to consider Electoral College reform. I might like a third party in this country. I am in favor of less willful ignorance. I think that, for example, the science skepticism that’s taken root in our culture is counter-productive. And I don’t know how we solve problems if we refuse to acknowledge facts and if we refuse to be educated.

I’d like to see less greed, materialism, selfishness, demonizing of the other. I read recently in a New York Op-Ed, “Political scientists have found that our nation is more polarized than it’s been since the Civil War.” And I’m really curious about how we might solve that. Like some of you said, I would like to see more civility, kindness, productive and generous disagreement. It’s okay to disagree. But again, I read somewhere that we live in a country where we all think that other party has gone off the rails. Well, we all think that about the other party. And I think we need to relearn how to disagree in a productive and generous fashion. I think we need to learn how to disagree within a context of problem-solving and focusing on the common good.

To what extent do I believe that President Trump is facilitating or not the accomplishment of my vision for the future of America? I don’t believe he’s facilitating what I envision because, to me, I just believe fundamentally that he’s a selfish, narcissistic, petty, greedy person who’s unsuited to be president of such a great country. He may do some things that I agree with at times, like Prison Reform Bill. But  I don’t think that President Trump does those things because there’s any overlap in his vision for America and my vision for America. I’m not sure what his vision for America’s future is. I think that his vision for America’s future is very self-centered. It’s hard for me to evaluate his efforts because I feel like so much of what he does is tainted by his lying and low moral character. I just don’t believe he’s fundamentally a good person who wants good things for his country. I would not want someone like him to lead other organizations or efforts that I care deeply about. And I care deeply about our country, so I don’t trust him to lead this country. And I wish he was not our President. I would love to see someone else be our president.

Thank you.

Participant 3

My vision for America is this:  America must become a country where abortion is as unthinkable as slavery. The parallels are unmistakable. And if you do not support slavery, you cannot, as a Christian or a human being, support abortion.

Here are some of the parallels. First of all, the Supreme Court said slavery was just fine in Plessy versus Ferguson. The Court said in Roe v. Wade that abortion is just fine, which means courts do not have the final answer on what is right. Second, slaves were treated as property. When a woman says, “My body, my choice.”, she is treating a fellow human being as property, which means she can do with it whatever she wants, whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants. Third, slaves were abused. They were tortured; they were often killed. Abortion is the ultimate abuse, whether by burning, poisoning, stabbing, dismemberments, it’s an atrocious killing. No matter how many years there were slaves, 150, something like that, the number of slaves who died, or were killed as slaves, doesn’t begin to compare to the 60 million who have been killed legally by abortion.

If you oppose slavery, how can you not oppose abortion? Slaves were dehumanized in the same way that the product of the womb is called the contents of the womb, a clump of cells, a fetus, a parasite. A California professor, on a screenshot I saved, recently compared an abortion to removing a cancerous tumor. Slaves were human. If you don’t believe that unborn babies are human, then it’s on you to tell us what they are. Is it animal, mineral or vegetable? At what point in the process does it become human? If we protect eagle eggs because we recognize that an eagle egg is an eagle, how can we not similarly protect unborn babies? What are they if not human?

An argument that I don’t use in secular situations, and I’ve been passionately pro-life for 30 years, is that Christians know that unborn babies are made in the image of God. That’s true from the moment of conception. Psalm 139:13 says, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb.” If you want to go read it, go look at the memorial to the unborn, which the Sioux County Pro-Life Committee and I put up in the Orange City cemetery in the southeast corner. It also says in the New Testament, that John, the unborn baby, recognized Jesus, the unborn baby and leaped in his mother’s womb.

Why am I so obsessed with abortion? Because there is no other issue that matters so much. Whatever group of people you think has been damaged or marginalized in our country or anywhere around the world, if 60 million of them had been killed since 1973, tell me, and I’ll switch my passion. I think it says an awful lot about us as a people whether or not we can agree on that common sense acceptance that abortion is always wrong and it cannot be the one situation in which an innocent bystander is guilty for someone else’s problems, mistakes, choices, or, in the case of rape or incest, crimes.

How does my vision for America relate to my thinking about President Trump? I was not excited about him. In 2012 and 2016, I was for Rick Santorum. There were many others I would have placed above Trump. They kind of all knocked each other out. Then you look at the binary choice you’re left with: Hillary Clinton, who stands with Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is basically a money laundering machine for the Democratic party. Look at where the donations go. Follow the blood money trail. They sell baby body parts, just like slaves were sold and that is irrefutably proven. President Trump’s many faults we could elaborate, and some of you have, and I nod my head right along with you. He’s not the man I wanted. He’s the man God allowed to be elected.

The things that he has done of which I approve because they are helping unborn babies are the following: he has appointed two pro-life Supreme Court Justices and his State of the Union Address was the most pro-life presidential statement ever. If you watch the video, the sullenly sitting there Democrats, it tells you everything. He has rebuked the Democrats for their promotion and support of abortion. Democrats have voted 35 times not to let an unborn baby who survives an abortion to live. You know in the Dred Scott decision, at least if a slave got to a free state he was considered free. If a baby survives the trip from the womb, the slave state of the womb, and makes it through the magical birth canal to the land of freedom, a free state on the table in the delivery room, how dare anyone say it’s still okay to kill it? That’s exactly what Democrats have done 35 times. Don’t tell me how rare it is because it doesn’t matter; it’s an atrocity.

Finally, as I look at the candidates, I would like to prefer someone to Donald Trump, please. I’ve looked at all 20 of the Democratic candidates. There’s not a one who is pro-life. I looked locally when J.D. Scholten ran. I was there when they applauded when I asked, “What will you do to reduce abortion?” He said basically nothing: “It has to be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.” That room at Northwestern College, as I put in my letter to the editor, burst into applause. I don’t like Donald Trump. I don’t like his character. I don’t like his abrasiveness. He is in many ways an ungodly man. I need a better alternative, and until there is one, I will once again vote for him in 2020, so help me, God.

Thank you.

Participant 4

What is my vision for the future of America? I do love my country. What a difference in the world such a vision of freedom for all to flourish can mean, but I fear the injustice that our power and privilege also bear. Do we (Do I?) see our freedoms as our own to hoard and to protect from the grasp of others or to share and multiply for the flourishing of the whole world?

I don’t think I ever saw both as clearly as I did the year we lived in South Africa in 1991. I missed home so much. I was surprised how much I missed home. I was so aware that I was an American, for good and for ill, with privilege, responsibility and a scandalous ability to ignore and float somewhere above the hardship of others. My weekly American sports fix was the NFL game of the week, only the action broadcast without huddles or time-outs, and with minimal commercials. I also missed the whole season of a Washington Huskies National College Football Championship, my college team. Who knew I was such a creature of my culture?

We watched Desert Storm emancipate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein from a TV screen on the other side of the world. I remember the night it started, wondering and praying about what the world was about to become. It was fascinating to watch black and white South Africans’ differing reactions to American action. It shed quite a different light on it to see those who supported apartheid support us, and black folks so oppressed by apartheid see a similar oppressor in what we were doing there.

We watched Rodney King get beaten by L.A. policemen. When we’d returned to Seattle, I remember the tension when those officers of the law were exonerated. I was riding a ferry from work in Seattle to our temporary home on Bainbridge Island later that night, when everyone was hearing the news and wondering if riots would break out there, too. I looked across the mostly empty ferry at a black man seated alone on the other side, wondering if I should go talk with him, but not knowing what I or he would say and deciding not to. I regret that. In conversations with black South African friends looking forward to democracy after apartheid, I often forecasted that they would see a black president of South Africa, but that I couldn’t see a similar future for America in my lifetime.

Like God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would bless all the nations, it depends so much on whether we’re focused on our own freedoms alone, or also the flourishing of others also. I’m not sure that it’s ever really been true as much as a romantic ideal in our history, but I think we are best when we stand for liberty and justice for all, not just for me and mine.

I’m also kind of traditional when it comes to ethics and how we treat others. I believe it’s important to tell the truth, maybe even especially when it’s hard. I respect those who do. They’re often worth following. I think treating others with humility, respect, and decency is important, too. I’m not a big believer in the ends justify the means. Rather, I think how we do something is the fruit of what we seek.

I believe in a free press, but it grieves me to see those rights used to scapegoat and silence people with other views. I’m very concerned about the state of our ideological divides, and my own inability to talk with people who differ from me. Not so much because I’d be inclined to argue, as because I’m conflict-avoidant and tend to be silent about what I actually think to avoid a fight. That fear leads me to disengage more than to connect, and I regret that.

I strongly believe in freedom of religion and separation of church and state, though I think people of all religious backgrounds should bring their values into their politics. I don’t believe the founders sought to establish a Christian nation, but to prevent abuses of power, including majority power, to infringe the rights of others, maybe especially religious. Ironically, I believe this somewhat religiously. Somehow, almost miraculously, our government was established as a system that allows differing interests to check each other. 

I think Jesus cares more about how we love others than enforcing beliefs or behaviors.

I really love the outdoors and believe that protecting our environment is very important for ourselves and the rest of the world for future generations. 

That said, to what extent do I believe President Trump is facilitating or not the accomplishment of my vision for the future of America? I’ve actually been quite surprised about how traditional and unforgiving my critique of President Trump has been, but I think it’s because I see him as deconstructing almost everything about my country that I think is most important. I think it actually brings shame on the witness of Christians who support him. I know of too many people who have written off evangelicals. It makes me wonder how they see Jesus.

Make America Great Again, I believe, feeds a nationalistic spirit that is not good news for the world. Building walls and our own economic and military is no way to bless the nations. “Lock her up” is eerily reminiscent of a mob that would rather see others suffer than take a hard look at ourselves. His constant (and fickle) sorting of good and bad people, depending on whether or not they support him, is a toxic recipe for the nation. Although I disagree with most of his policies that seem to me to make the rich richer with little regard for the poor, most of my objection to President Trump relates to his character, and a process that seems like an assault on our most important institutions and resources, because it serves his own ego and interests. I believe he models a style of self-centered leadership that is staggeringly destructive.

But what concerns me most is not him, but the society that is obsessed with him, in support or critique, including myself. I think it should tell us something about ourselves if we weren’t so busy giving him our attention.

Participant 5

My vision for the United States going forward is I think pretty similar for most of us: we’re all going to be prosperous and live in harmony with all kinds of happiness and all that. Sort of Utopian ideas. I don’t know exactly how to get there. I think that the best way for us to get there is freedom within restraint. And economically, I think it’s very easy to get to that point. I think we’re in quite a boom right now, economically, and there’s unemployment numbers that we haven’t seen in 50 years.

And, I think a lot of that is due to President Trump’s policies. I think a lot of that is due to just the fact that the economy has been let loose, and it was restrained for a number of years after the last recession and we’re seeing that there’s still opportunity in America, and people are willing to take it, people are interested in taking it.

As to the African American and Hispanic communities, I’ve seen some numbers the last couple of days that their unemployment numbers have never been lower. This is true for women, for African Americans, for Hispanics, for all the demographics you can name. So, I think, I hope that is good for people. I would like to believe that there’s opportunity there, and the opening of the American economy to everyone through this boom that we’re going through is good, and maybe can open those doors to  some of the other issues that we face, like  the difficulties that Black folks or Hispanic folks see relative to inequality.

I see that President Trump has been good for the economy, and I think that’s kind of the bedrock of our ability to heal as a nation because I think most people vote as much with their wallets as with anything. So, the fact that people are doing well, hopefully, obviously not everything, not 100% of that is due to President Trump, but I hope that they can look at each other and see, “Hey, you’re doing well, I’m doing well. You’re not an inferior person because you’re poor, but you’re somebody who does appeal to me because you’re a fellow human being.” It’s easier I think to marginalize other people when they’re not able to take care of themselves. And I think that’s something that we haven’t done. I think that’s something that we have difficulty with.

And, as far as President Trump,  He’s definitely not my cup of tea when it comes to his personality and the kinds of things he says. I wish he would just stop Tweeting. But, I think policy wise, I’ve been pretty happy, and I think overall he’s been good for the country.

Participant 6

 I write, I would say maybe, in the tradition of a poet. In my upbringing I, maybe find affinity with the prophets, how they speak. My answers are written in maybe a more poetic language than a precise language just to clarify.

What is my vision for the future of America? I’ll begin bluntly and then clarify my answer. I do not care about the future of America. The America defined by its current borders, by its identifiers of citizenship, by its military might and presence in the world, by its inclination toward growing and maintaining economic power, and by its current manifestation of hierarchy systems and infrastructure. This America does not matter to me. In fact, I would not be sad to see the current reality of America embedded as I perceive it to be in systems of injustice completely dismantled into something that resembles peace and love for everyone, especially including those who have spent centuries as marginalized people.

In order for me to share my vision for the future of America I believe sharing my understanding of how I currently see America is important. I see an America that utilizes the world’s resources but does not share equally in the returns made off those resources. For an example of this I look at our use of technology as dependent upon mining in Congo and manufacturing in China compared with the wealth gap of technology companies and miners/factory workers in the Congo and China.

Even in our communities like Flint or Appalachian communities in West Virginia, which do not have access to safe or clean water, we have children in our communities who are food insecure, we have adults in our communities riddled with college debt without access to incomes needed to pay back the interest on that debt. In nearly every sphere of life access to food, shelter, medicine, education, there are obstacles and exploitation for many while wealth remains highly concentrated in a small group of power brokers whom hold incredible influence over policy shaping and maintaining unjust systems. As an example of this I would look at the history of redlining written about by Ta-Nehishi Coates in A Case for Reoarations and the current reality of mass incarceration written about by Michelle Alexander in The New Jim Crow.

We are a nation divided by class, race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. A small sample of examples that lead me to this conclusion are these stats: 40% of homeless youth are LGBTQ; The unemployment rate for transgender people is three times higher than the rest of America; 54% of transgender people have reported experiencing sexual violence, and one in three transgender people live in poverty. This is not a picture of a country where all people are liberated and experience justice as The United States’ Pledge of Allegiance claims the republic stands upon.

What exactly is the republic standing upon? In my pessimistic cynical view,  our government stands upon centuries of explanation, greed, and violence. For me, this is the vision for the future. Jesus proclaimed in Luke 4 referencing the year of Jubilee, “He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,” and then those listening tried to throw him off a cliff. I believe that Jesus’ vision for the world is bigger than we can accept. It upsets us because it uproots the things that we secretly love more than him. To fixate on Jesus is to lose sight of the flag.

This is my vision for the future. A future where we believe that selling our possessions and providing for the poor was not a suggestion, but rather the definition of the early church. A future where we believe that loving our neighbor does not mean bombing, killing, raping, cheating, deceiving, manipulating, ignoring, starving, exploiting, torturing, or deporting them. Where we believe that loving our neighbor as we love ourselves means we cannot deprive them of anything we would not deprive ourselves, a future where we believe that love transforms and not war. That intentional resurrection restores, not government. That conversation builds relationships, not sanctions. That reconciliation happens through corporal works of mercy, humility, vulnerability, and forgiveness, not corporal punishment and isolation. A future where we believe that the right response to others means bringing joy, enabling peace, practicing patience, enacting kindness and goodness, maintaining faithfulness, all with gentleness and self-control. A future where we reject the idea of self-interest alive in the marketplace and instead choose to use our community to pursue and fulfill the interest of the marginalized.

A future where we refuse to argue about the origins of things or the truth of science, but rather choose to live in such a way that allows the created order to continue to exist and thrive. A future where we acknowledge our short comings and failures of and believe that each moment is practice for the next. That only through intimate accountability can any community pursue their dreams, fulfill their imaginations, and remain faithful to their soul.

Lastly, I whole heartedly reject the idea of impossibility. I believe that another world is possible, that another way is possible and that possibility exists because we exist as a whole and Christ exists as our enabler. If the blind are to see, let them see our lives as good. If the deaf are to hear, let our words bring them hope.

To what extent do I believe President Trump is facilitating my vision for the future of America? This is the last part of my answer. I do not see any evidence at all that President Trump is facilitating anything I wish for my neighbors. The most hopeful and thankful I’ve been since he took office was when he signed The First Step Act, a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill aimed at reducing recidivism and refining sentencing laws and harsh penalties. However, I find him lacking in the empathy I believe it would take to truly tackle the deep and wide injustices embedded in the criminal justice system. To defend this claim I need only to point you towards the way he has spoken and continues to speak about football player protests and anyone who allegedly commits a crime in America. Trump has exhibited behaviors and rhetoric that actively dehumanize people of color, people who worship differently than him, anyone who does not identify as a cisgender man, impoverished people, people from other countries, disabled folks, and the list goes on.

A man who cannot exhibit love in his words or deeds does not have my trust in his capabilities to lead us toward an America steeped in love and peace. That said, I do not at this current time believe any one person is capable of leading in this way, but rather that we as a body following Christ can do the work here and now in our communities. I’ll conclude by quoting Mennonite pastor Melissa Florer-Bixler. “I would not have chosen Jesus. Violence is so attractive, hierarchies are efficient, coercive power achieves quick results, but I have met Jesus and that is that.”

Participant 7

It is my turn to address the topic of my vision for America and how I think President Trump is doing in achieving some of those goals.

I’ve titled my little piece, “Features of a Desired Future.” Different spheres that impact my life are: the religious sphere. I hope for protection for religion, not official anti-religious bias; I hope for protection of life, not 60 million more abortions; I hope for a common morality, not just individual truth; And I hope for natural law standards, not legal progressivism.

And do note that I have natural law in the religious sphere, because historically they do come together. Law was not politicized classically, although it is today.

In the political sphere, I’d like to see authority in the citizenry, not authority in the government. The government should only have delegated powers, not sui generis, its own powers. I like liberty within limits, not liberty without limits. I prefer and hope for civil discourse, not gridlock and demonizing the opposition, either direction.

I like policies and ideals, not identity politics and parties, and I prefer cooperation, not conflict or violence.

In the economic sphere I prefer wealth creation, not wealth redistribution. I prefer merit based rewards, not entitlements and victimhood. And I hope for freedom of opportunity, not an artificial equality.

My rationale? I believe that liberalism has failed. For the last 50 to 70 years, both political parties have leaned towards the center to gain the independent voter. But the center has collapsed. It was useful only for getting elected. After election, sharp differences reappear as we sink back into our gridlock. I believe that for the foreseeable future, politics will be played at the edges of the spectrum. Bernie Sanders is a populist on the left and Donald Trump is a populist on the right. Both unrealistic extremes are not suited for the long haul.

Presently there is no national consensus, only conflict and confrontation. And this is the perfect environment for populism. Populism is not a concept, it’s only a strategy, and we’ve seen it work for President Trump. The collapse of the center, that is disenchantment with no results in education, racial reconciliation or economic progress, has shifted control of domestic policy from a do nothing Congress over to the courts and the bureaucracy, neither of which figured large in the design of the founding fathers.

The Supreme Court was designed to arbitrate between the Executive and the Congress. It never was designed as an independent oracle of law or policy. Legislatures, that is the people, should make the law, and courts only administer the law. Now our courts have assumed the role of declaring unconstitutional anything which violates or impedes the progressive agenda. We’re now discovering previously unknown constitutional rights and freedoms, which would make the founding fathers blush.

We are abusing the concepts of equal protection and fundamental personal rights. We need to consider adding a method for the governed to override or veto unacceptable court decisions, just like we have the power of recall and of referendum on people and on issues.

Who does America belong to? Where should the final authority reside? I believe it should be in the citizenry. The contrast for the two kinds of liberalism that have been classically understood in our nation since the middle 1850s would be Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. Burke is liberty within limits. Mill, liberty without limits. Cultural safeguards protecting liberty versus government as the tool to expand liberty. And Burke believed that human nature tended to destroy community when unrestrained, and Mill believed that human nature would eventually improve community with enough education.

And how is President Trump doing? President Trump is facilitating the accomplishment of my vision for America in the following ways. He is attempting to keep his campaign promises. He is appointing Supreme Court nominees from the early list that he published while he was campaigning. Both verbally and administratively he is promoting the lives of the unborn.

He is attempting to reduce and roll back extreme regulations, reordering of the economy through trade agreements, tariffs and taxes, and he is attempting immigration reform efforts. I disagree with his style, but I like his results and I commend his efforts.

Participant 8

Here is my vision for America is. I guess I’m a very constitutional conservative, I guess is the term I would use for myself. So I’m somebody that would like us to return back to our original founding purpose as a country, which would be a constitutional republic.

And the parts of that that I greatly appreciate, and I think that we’ve lost sight of, would be some of our small government. Government not driving and being involved in so much of our lives. Certainly touching that on our liberty that we each should cherish and have in this country, where we have the liberty to use our talents, our gifts, our money, what we earn the way we see fit. So, I guess my vision for America is certainly a small government, limited government, and certainly one driven by the Constitution and what that was all set out for us.

So that entails the idea that we’re governed by laws, which is the idea of a constitutional republic, not driven by a democratic system of the mob or the majority ruling, which I think is very important. In our DNA we can see some of the challenges that we have when we allow just the moment to drive our politics, instead of the law and reason to drive our politics.

So if I go into how I believe Trump is facilitating or not facilitating that. I’m certainly not someone who feels he’s doing that as well as I would like, but I do feel that he is doing a much better job in that then what we have seen in my memory of a president. So some of the places that I don’t think he’s doing what I like, we certainly are expanding our deficit, spending more than what we bring in. I certainly don’t appreciate that, I don’t feel that’s part of what government should do.

An example of where I think we’re going away from limited government, some of the laws that recently, he has been promoting, like a family leave law, where we as tax payers will be paying for people to take leave from their job. Again, that’s the idea of limited government not dictating how my money should be spent in other people’s lives.

Some places where I think he’s doing a good job and helping go back to a limited small government, he has certainly reduced a lot of regulations that were definitely stifling a lot of innovation, a lot of jobs, a lot of growth in this country. Which also has led to the creation of many, many jobs, which has been very good for us as a country, and helped many things.

Another area where I greatly appreciate his work has been fighting for religious liberties. We saw some of that being taken away from us in the last administration. We certainly are seeing that being relaxed, where we have liberty, not just my religion, but anybody’s religion to worship as they feel fit in this country.

Another area I feel he’s doing a good job is that limited government is certainly reducing taxes on us, allowing us to keep our money, allowing us to spend the money where we see fit. Instead of the government taking it and spending our money.

To close, I would say I am much more in favor of what he’s doing to facilitate my vision of America, but certainly there’s not 100% agreement in what’s happening.

 

Leading Questions

At any point during this conversation beyond Session 1, readers of this website shall have to opportunity to submit Leading Questions electronically to the Moderator, who will then include such questions in his compilations of questions that he will be sending to all conversation partners in preparation for subsequent sessions.

Comment to this post to submit a Leading Question.