This election, socially conservative Christians, including many of my own family and friends, have found themselves without a candidate who represents what they want in a leader. Trump is not it. But there is no other candidate—not even a third-party candidate—who wants to ban abortions. And since I’ve been voting, that’s been the consistent issue that has tied Christians to the Republican party.
These voters, then, either have to vote against the issue that’s most important to them, or they have to vote for a man who is repulsive. Social media screams, “How can a Christian vote for Trump considering….?” But there is another important question, which is, “How can voters vote against the one person in an election who takes their side of what they see as the most important issue?”
The solution, for some, has been to put the election in “God’s hands” and trust that God can use a repulsive man as an instrument for good.
Here, is where I want to present a slightly different idea to my Christian friends, family, and neighbors. If you believe that God has raised Trump up to this position, could it not be that God is using him to break up a Christian-Republican alliance that no longer makes sense.
It’s not secret that I’m liberal. I was one of the few “out” Democrats in my hometown in southwest Missouri. I’m not trying to be sneakily opportunistic in terms of using a difficult situation for “my side’s” political gain. I don’t think in those terms. And I don’t think Trump will win the election, regardless.
On the contrary, he may have caused irreparable damage to the G.O.P. Granted, there is a demographic that Trump represents well, but it’s small. Many others (including Republican leaders) who stood with him because of the policy that he promises to represent have now decided that it’s more important to have a stable, respectable person at the helm. Many fiscal conservatives are withdrawing fundraising support for the same reason. Christians are feeling trapped. But Christians walked into this trap. The party has long depended on finding a candidate who represents a wide variety of interests, some at odds with each other. The many Christians I know personally, my friends and family, open their homes to people. They love people regardless of the color of their skin or where they were born. They empathize. They come together to try to help people meet their basic needs. They are generous.
I have always felt that those values were more supported by liberal policy than conservative policy. I believe liberal policies show love for all people. They are policies built around sharing wealth and caring for and protecting everyone. I see Democrats as the party that prioritizes hope over fear. When I initially formed my political beliefs, I formed them very cognizant of the teachings of Jesus. If the primary reason Christians have been voting Republican is because they want the teachings of Jesus to be supported by government, it seems they have been misguided by leadership that has tried to convince them it’s about one issue (or two, if you we bring gay marriage into play, but I’ve said what I have to say about that). Of course, there are political reasons to vote Republican. I’m not trying to say there aren’t. There are principled Christians on both sides. I’m not trying to say Christians have to vote Democrat to be “good Christians.” I just think there is a solid case to be made for Christians to consider liberal politicians that has been ignored or too-easily dismissed by too many.
But I think Trump’s candidacy really forces us all to look at this political alliance between Christians—the Christians I know—and a group of people who use rhetoric that damages women, minorities, and immigrants and that incites violence. Over the past decade, Christians allowed comments made from this faction of Republicans to slide past, unaddressed or mildly chastised. Christians allowed laws to be passed that damaged people who are without means to defend themselves, without an outcry. Christians did not withdraw their general support for the party, its leaders, or the direction it was headed.
And now there is Trump. And there are Christians who are about to pardon some of the most atrocious, divisive statements (and I’m not just talking about the tape—or even primarily talking about the tape) that have ever come out of a candidate’s mouth. The logical gymnastics that I’ve seen on display are extensive. But, from what I understand, most of it ultimately resides in the strongly held and viscerally felt belief that abortion needs to be illegal.
So abortion. I will not argue the morality of abortion. The point at which we believe a fetus or “unborn baby,” if that is your preferred term, is “alive” and therefore entitled to be protected is a firmly-held, inarguable belief. We can agree that when a child is born, he/she is “alive” and should be protected. I personally believe that a child is alive at some point before that. However, I also recognize that where we draw this line is heavily influenced by our religion and varying life experiences. And I don’t want to force my view on anyone else. At this point, most people are informed about the process. The law has tried to find a middle ground at 24 weeks, which may have to be a livable compromise because I won’t change your mind if you are pro-life, and you won’t change mine. The difference is, my stance, the pro-choice stance, allows for the existence of opposing beliefs as well. I would never be in favor of forcing abortions and would fight fervently against it. I do not want the number of abortions to increase. I do not see voting for a Democrat who will nominate a more liberal judge to be voting against my hope that abortions can be decreased.
On the contrary, Democrats and other liberals, including Hillary, have long-supported policies that I think will decrease the number of abortions. These include providing greater access to affordable childcare, improving the adoption and foster care process, and providing greater access to birth control. At least some of these policies are solutions that both parties could embrace, so we could work together toward a common goal. The alternative, banning abortions—or humiliating women who have them performed–is a “solution” that is much more dictatorial in nature. It wouldn’t end abortion; it would drive it back underground. And those of us who are pro-choice would have to fight, again, for what we strongly believe is the civil right to have control over our own beliefs and bodies. We won’t stop. If we can’t “agree to disagree” on when life begins—and go with the position that does not force itself on anyone but allows all women to make their own choice—we will continue to fight over this inarguable issue, every single election. And it will continue to be the thing that stops us from finding common ground and making actual, permanent progress on this and on other matters.
If Christians can agree to leave that one choice to the individual, they suddenly have more options in terms of people to vote for. Personally, I think, Hillary could be a good choice for Christians. But that is not the point of this article. I know that some find Hillary to be as repulsive as Trump. All I will say is that I disagree with that viewpoint very strongly. But I won’t argue because I can’t honestly say that I will have the ability to listen to enormous false equivalencies that are hurled back in this “discussion.” And if I can’t listen, how can I pretend to “discuss” something? I am not even open to phrasing this election as the “lesser of two evils” because, in the words and actions of Hillary, I see politics, and in the words and actions of Trump, I see evil. And I don’t use “evil” lightly. But those who can’t vote for Hillary, can vote third party–if we can stop fighting about abortion. I will not digress further. I’m wading into dangerous territory. I can almost feel the walls going up on all sides–and that threatens my ability to communicate a point that I believe we can actually connect on.
The point I want to make is that a vote for Trump is an active choice, not an act of God. If God can use a man who repulses Christians, why couldn’t God also use a woman–even if some find her repulsive? Is this “God has anointed Trump to lead us” interpretation not an interpretation fed by those desperately trying to cling to a crumbling religious-political alliance? I am so frustrated on behalf of my Christian friends and family because I sense their exploitation. Trump is taking advantage of earnest belief. He’s found a loophole.
But an even more important point is this: since this moment of sincere reflection has been practically forced upon Christians—and all Americans–I hope it will be taken. I do not mean to imply that Trump happened solely because of Christians. I don’t want to perpetuate false equivocations, as I do think that some groups are much more responsible and that other groups have suffered a great deal more and have justified anger, but there is a degree of empathy missing from all sides of the conversation. Even as I call the actions of Trump evil, I will not call the man or any of his supporters evil. This “high road” is easier for me to take from my comfortable position of privilege than my friends who by virtue of their race, religion, or income-level are threatened by Trump and his supporters even more than I, as a woman, have been. And it’s still not easy for me to put it in writing. Because he does pose a direct threat to women. From those of us Trump has so publicly put down and, in some cases, endangered, to not label him and those he does represent as “evil” takes radical empathy. And, though it appears as though we will avoid a Trump presidency, after this divisive election, it may take radical (and unearned) empathy from all of us to move us forward as a country. But I am willing to give it, and I believe that others will be, too. I no longer label myself a Christian, but I do still believe in this important teaching of Jesus: we need to love our enemies.
We have a few more weeks of this election to endure. Let’s endure it mindfully and lovingly. That way, when we all start to pick up the pieces after November 8th, we can find a way to do it together.
6 Comments
Well-reasoned comment, Emily. I hope you tip the scales for some people who are frustrated but have not spent time thinking through the election predicament as thoroughly as you have. I’m sure you have offered some people an alternative view of what is at stake in this election if they stick to party over common sense.
Hey Em. It bothers me more and more the older I get how many Christians are so solidly and stubbornly attached to being a Republican. I don’t know a ton about the beginnings of the Religious Right in the 80s, but it’s done its work, eh? As a follower of Christ, my first allegiance is to His Kingdom, and He doesn’t fit into any manmade party. And as you pointed out, many of His teachings support liberal ideas even better than those of the Republican camp. Know that there are Christians out there as thoroughly disgusted by Trump as you are. Thanks for your thoughts.
Yes. Great read. It reminded me of an article I read a while back: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fighting-fear/201402/why-do-people-hold-their-beliefs-so-stubbornly
I love the perspective you have taken, here. Exposure and reflection is always the best teacher. An instrument. So very hopeful. Thank you for sharing.
That is an interesting article. I wonder how many conflicts would be resolved simply by allowing for the possibility of being wrong.
if you believe in God then you believe he created you when the sperm attached to the egg and fertilization occurred. Logically then if you believe in God you have to believe that life is created at the moment of fertilization.
It has always been amusing to me to listen to the arguments of when life begins. As with most everything that people argue about it becomes emotional and logic and reason go out the window.
Attempting a compromise would violate every belief a christian has. Do you really understand what a baby looks like at 24 weeks. I have taken care of 24 week babies and sent them home quite normal with their mothers.
Do you really believe that God says ok I declare that the fetus is now a baby and can’t be touched.
For a true believer in God there can be no compromise.
As for pro-choice do I really have to tell you how specious your argument is for that stance. You are in charge of your own body and you assume the responsibility to make sure you don’t get pregnant but if you do then man up and carry the baby to term.
Interestingly enough a definite majority of “Christians” believe in the death penalty.
I personally am not religious but still believe based on logic and reason that abortion is an irresponsible choice.
Your very first premise is a little off. Let’s take this one argument at a time:
1. Not every woman in America believes in God. So why should an atheist be held to a belief about when life begins based on a religious belief? Does that not violate separation of church and state?
2. I wasn’t arguing about when “life begins” but when a child is alive and entitled to protection. It’s an important distinction. Think about it this way: a tree begins with a seed. But we wouldn’t call eating an acorn as eating a tree. They are different things. Many people make a similar distinction with humans, and that distinction has as much validity as any other.
3. Not every woman who does believe in God (or who even defines themselves as Christian) believes a child is “alive” at conception.There is no logical connection between believing in God and believing that a child is alive at conception. They are two separate beliefs that might correlate to some degree, but are certainly not causal. There are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are readers of the Bible. And there are people who believe in God in very different ways. I, personally, don’t believe that God says when a child is alive because I don’t believe God “says” anything. We need to have space in our country for all people.
4. Yes, I have an idea of what 24-week fetus looks like. As I said, at this point, most people do. This, by the way, is an emotional, not logical argument. There is some logic in identifying the point of “viability” and using that to determine when a child is alive, but there are plenty of “arguments” against it. I won’t go further into this particular aspect of the discussion over social media, though.
5. Not every woman has control over whether or not she is impregnated. It’s easy for men and for women, myself included, who have never been in this situation to sit back and judge. But my life circumstances are different from those of other people. I’m not suggesting that abortion should be treated casually, but I am suggesting that I, personally, have no right to force another woman to follow my belief. Many women, depending on their life circumstances, see abortion as making the more responsible choice. I could try to convince them otherwise, but I shouldn’t be allowed to force them to follow my ideas about responsibility.
The pro-choice stance allows for people to hold and follow their own beliefs on this matter. I’m not forcing my belief on you. (I didn’t even tell you what it was. It might, very well, be the same as yours.) What gives you the right to force yours on me?