Jumping to Conclusions and What I Meant to Say

Added on by Jeremy Mulder.

After writing yesterdays post, I was called out by my conservative windbag (joking) friend on twitter, @birdwatcher3, for twisting Trump's words...

And I have to admit, he was right. I fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous, is never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this... Oh, wait. That's from this movie...

The blunder I fell into was assuming that I could understand his intention without hearing his tone or reading his body language. In pre-marital counseling I often emphasize that communication happens primarily through tone and body language; the actual words we use only communicate a small fraction of what we want to say. How we say things is just as important as what we say. (This is the reason that discussions/arguments/disagreements on social media almost always end up in offense...it's just words, and most of us don't communicate well with only words.)

So let me just state for the record that Donald Trump was making a joke, it was clearly a joke, and the audience knew it was a joke. And although I never doubted that He thought it was a joke, it was clear from the context, his tone, and his body language that it was a very light-hearted joke, almost certainly made without any meaning behind it, and the audience thought it was a joke as well. I jumped to a conclusion that wasn't necessitated by his comments, didn't do the research I should have, and ended up overstating my point.

Having owned up to my error and overreaction, however, let me also reiterate what I think is true about what I wrote yesterday–and then get on to the post I was going to write today regardless. (The title of yesterday's post was originally, "How Donald Trump Just Lost the Election and What to Do About It", and I decided to leave the "What to Do About It" until today.)

1) The general argument in favor of voting for Donald Trump is still true, and I would support the logic of it. That is, that the nomination of the Supreme Court justices is so important to the future of our country, that one must not lose sight of how big a deal that is, even if the candidate who would appoint more conservative judges has serious flaws.

2) The general argument against Donald Trump also remains true, that the question comes down to whether or not his rhetoric and other ideas eventually overshadow the positive benefit of the supreme court nominations, so that even that is not a good enough reason to continue to support him. The overstatement I made yesterday was that I thought he may have reached that point; having watched the clip, I now disagree with myself.

It's worth noting that my intention was not to suggest support for either candidate. It's not on me to tell anyone how to vote. I think there are common principles that should guide each of us, and those principles may, at times, lead us to support differing candidates. That's fine. We can trust each other to prayerfully consider how we should make our decision, and then allow one another to be guided by our own conscience.

All of what I wrote yesterday, however, including the clarifications from today, were really only laying the groundwork for my main point: regardless of who wins, what are we supposed to do about it? Because evangelicals tend to vote republican, and also tend to dislike Hillary Clinton, I wanted to frame it in the reality that, like it or not, she might be the next president. What then? That's the question I set out to address.

There are several concerns that I hear from Christians as we move into this election season.

First and foremost, the concern that seems to be shared by almost everyone in America for one reason or another: we have two candidates who both stink. A majority of people would probably agree that one stinks less than the other, but I've heard from social liberals who think Hillary is too conservative and conservatives who think she's way too liberal. Conservatives think that Donald Trump is not a true conservative, and many are turned off by his rhetoric; liberals and progressives literally equate Trump to Hitler. Most people aren't thrilled by their options, and they are wondering what to do.

This is where the argument above that evangelicals often use to justify support for Trump should really be used in support of any candidate. Barring something unforeseen, one of these two people is going to be president. Your responsibility, as a voting citizen, is to choose the one whose positives are more positive than the other–however you define that. As a Christian, you may dislike Clinton's stand on abortion or the economy, but may strongly support her views on foreign policy. You may dislike Trump's morality or his rhetoric, but strongly support his nominees for the court or his economic policy.

There's a real danger when we stick our head in the sand and don't deal with things as they are. And in this case, "how things are" is that one of these two flawed people is going to be president. We shouldn't pretend that this isn't the case, or pretend that somehow, if we do nothing, or we don't vote, then it's someone else's problem. Do your research. Decide what you think is positive. Make a pros and cons list if you have to. And then vote your conscience. Because one of these two people is going to be president, and we still need to make the best choice we can, even if it's hard.

Second is the concern that's also shared by many people, but I've heard it more from Christians: what do we do if X wins? What is the future of our country? Often this question is couched in an underlying fear that if so and so gets elected, the future of the country is in jeopardy, or the future of the church is in jeopardy, or the future of Christian morality or ethics or freedoms is in jeopardy, or whatever. That's the question I had set out to respond to, so let me offer some comments that should put the Christian's mind at ease.

All of those things–the country, the future of the church as we know it, the future of Christian morality and ethics, religious freedoms-all of them are probably in jeopardy regardless. Let's deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was. And reality as it is means that many of the things that we have grown accustomed to in the United States will probably not exist for much longer. Culture no longer holds to the Christian ethic. It's obvious in matters of sexuality, but it's also obvious in matters of the economy, and in matters of civil dialogue. Nations go through ebbs and flows, and none last forever as a "super-power". And what is religious freedom, anyway? No one can really stop us from worshiping, but is there any expectation that they will be so accommodating? Is there any expectation that churches will always be exempt from taxes or that charitable contributions will always be tax-deductible?

Most of the things we've grown accustomed to as American Christians are not experienced by other people in the world, and while we should be thankful that we've had those freedoms, we probably shouldn't expect them to go on forever. There, don't you feel better?

It sounds like bad news, but it's actually good news, when you can deal with it as it is. Maybe we've found comfort in those things for too long, and God is calling us back to finding comfort in Him. Maybe we've relied on a particular type of nationalism to keep us safe, when God said that he would keep his church safe. Maybe we've relied on a friendly culture to strengthen our churches, when God wants us to rely on the Holy Spirit to strengthen our churches. Dealing with it as it is means that you don't hold too tightly on to things you probably can't keep anyway, particularly when you are relying on them to provide you comfort.

There is a true comfort that we have, and in's the overarching truth that keeps us from being overwhelmed when we deal with things as they are: we have no reason to fear. The true church has survived through every single ebb and flow of culture, and it will survive through whatever is coming down the road.

That knowledge protects us from the fear that somehow, the future is outside of God's control. It isn't. It also protects us from the unhelpful feeling that the past was somehow better, if only we could get back to it. It isn't. What matters is dealing with things as they are, as best we can.

That doesn't mean, however, that we have to go silently into the night. In fact, quite the opposite. The knowledge that we don't have to be afraid regardless of what happens means that we can fight for what we believe is best for the country without the fear that somehow we're going to screw things up in the process–especially if we lose.

Jeremiah told the exiles and sojourners who were being held captive in Babylon to seek the good of the city and seek it's welfare, because when they did that, it wouldn't just be the city that flourished; they would flourish as well (Jeremiah 29). David talks about the protection of the city of Jerusalem in many of the Psalms, but his point is never the city of Jerusalem. It's always the temple. He prays for the protection of Jerusalem because he knows that if Jerusalem is protected, and Jerusalem thrives, then he will be free to worship (Psalm 122:6-9).

So here's what you do. Inform yourself. Care for the future of the country. Consider what is best for the country. Engage in dialogue about it. And then, when the time comes, vote.

And then, the next day, when you wake up, and __________________ is the President Elect, you pray for him or her, and you go about your day. Just like you did the day before. Just like you'll do the day after.

Because God is still in control, and you have no reason to fear.