John Piper, Donald Trump, and the 2020 Election
I was a never-Trumper in 2016, but in 2020 I believe the wisest decision is to vote for Trump in an effort to love my neighbor. Here’s how I reached that decision.
I’ve had multiple people ask my opinion on John Piper’s recent article on the election, most likely because I’ve shared so many of his articles and sermons over the years. Before addressing the article, I just want to say that John Piper is without a doubt one of the godliest and most humble people I have ever known, and I am certain I would not be where I am today were it not for his ministry. Indeed, it is through his writings and sermons that I have learned what it means to truly treasure Christ above all else. As to the article itself, I disagree with Piper’s conclusion and some of his comparisons, but this in no way diminishes the great respect and affection I have for him.
Others have already written more thorough articles that accurately capture many of my reasons for disagreement, and I will link to several articles below. But for the sake of those who asked me directly (and anyone else who is interested), I want to briefly share my own thoughts on why I’ve come to a different conclusion.
In 2016, I was a never-Trumper for many of the same reasons as Piper. I was opposed to Trump’s nomination and did not vote for him in 2016, believing the harm to Christian witness to be too great. Others supported Trump, believing him to be the best option to stave off evil and to do good to one’s neighbor (especially our unborn neighbors). I understood this desire to vote for the “lesser of two evils,” but it did not persuade me. “The lesser of two evils is still evil,” I said. I simply could not understand how Christians could vote for Trump, and I believed that my decision not to vote for him was the morally superior one (if I’m being perfectly honest about how I felt). Fast forward to today, and I sincerely believe I was wrong.
Today, I find myself in the position of mournfully supporting President Trump, and I plan to vote for him this week. What I mean by “mournfully supporting” is that while I do not condone or support the tone in which he often speaks (or tweets), and while I believe he has acted wrongly in the past, I have to admit that he has governed in a way that has largely been for the good of the nation (explained more below). Moreover, while I absolutely believe that character matters for our elected officials and wish we had a different option, I believe that, on balance, voting for Trump is the best choice—and perhaps one that may save our Republic. If that’s shocking to hear me say that, understand that I’m probably more shocked than you based on how completely opposed I was to Trump in 2016. I do not like to speak in ways that sound sensationalist, and I know that’s how these statements may come across. But my aim here is simply to convey, as honestly as possible, where I now stand. Others, like Piper, may arrive at different conclusions and may not be able to vote for Trump for the sake of conscience. I completely understand because I was there in 2016, and I wholeheartedly support those who reach that conclusion. For me in 2020, though, I believe the wisest decision is to vote for Trump in an effort to love my neighbor. Here’s how I reached that decision:
(1) I mentioned above that I believed voting for the lesser of two evils was still a vote for evil. I still empathize with this view and respect those today who choose not to vote for Trump for this reason. But what I personally failed to realize in thinking this way is that there has never been a perfect candidate, and even the best candidates are still sinful human beings. No person, and no political party, is perfectly righteous. My belief now is that we are always dealing with matters of degree when it comes to how good or evil a candidate or party is. Different believers may have different tolerances for what they can in good conscience vote for, and in my view no believer should be shunned or scorned for choosing to vote (or not vote) for Trump.
(2) One of the chief ways that I believe the Trump administration has brought about good for our nation is in the defense of the unborn. I was skeptical in 2016 whether Trump would deliver on any pro-life promises that he made, but the reality is that he has been faithful to his word (and he has honestly done more than other presidents who have made similar promises). For a short list of pro-life victories, see here:
https://www.sba-list.org/trump-pro-life-wins
One of the most common counters from Democrats is that Trump (and other Republicans) are not fully pro-life but only pro-birth. Critics of President Trump have frequently pointed to his immigration policies, especially how children have been separated from their parents at the border. To this point, I do not believe that Trump has articulated well what has been happening at the border, and I believe he could have displayed more sympathy at the last debate, but it is absolutely true that coyotes (i.e., human smugglers) will often bring children into the country without their parents, in which case it is difficult if not impossible to reunite these children with their parents. These are tragic situations, but the accusation that Trump (or the law enforcement officials patrolling our borders) have simply lost the children’s parents or have no regard for these children’s well-being is a pretty bold claim (and one that I believe is without evidence). I am not saying that Trump’s immigration policies are perfect (there is room for debate there), but to claim that Trump, through the work of scores of law enforcement officials, has callously separated more than 500 children from their parents is not supported by evidence (though I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary).
Important note: Even if it WERE true that Trump had intentionally ordered the separation of children from their families, how in the world could anyone supporting the Democratic platform decry these actions when Democrats openly support the murder of the unborn for any reason, right up until the moment of birth? Hundreds of thousands of children are ripped from their mothers’ wombs every year, and the Left praises this premeditated murder as a moral good. Joe Biden has been proudly endorsed by Planned Parenthood, and Kamala Harris was the attorney general of California who prosecuted David Daleiden—the president of the Center for Medical Progress who released undercover footage of Planned Parenthood officials several years ago (the videos where PP officials were discussing the sale of fetal body parts).
(3) The Trump administration has done much good in other ways beyond furthering the pro-life cause. Here’s a link to some additional accomplishments:
https://www.frcaction.org/accomplishments
Some may take issue with this source as it comes from the Family Research Council, but the page does a good job cataloguing these accomplishments by date and links directly to outside sources. Here are just a few examples of how the Trump administration has worked to protect the rights of others:
“[T]he State Department placed targeted sanctions on Burmese military officials for their human rights and religious freedom violations committed against the Rohingya Muslim population.”
“[T]he State Department placed targeted sanctions on Russian officials for their religious freedom violations and torture of Jehovah's Witnesses.”
“[T]he Department of Commerce blacklisted 28 Chinese companies whose surveillance technology products are used to systematically oppress and control -- and violate the religious freedom -- of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, China.”
“President Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, which affirms Hong Kong's semi-autonomous status and protects against Chinese government encroachment, which is a threat to Hong Kong's religious freedom.”
“President Trump issued an executive order to strengthen America's foster care and adoption system.”
(4) What about the claim that Trump is racist? While Trump has stood for the religious liberty of Muslims, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christians, many claim that Trump is nevertheless racist, bigoted, and xenophobic. Much of the recent criticism of Trump in this regard stems from the first presidential debate. To be fair, Trump could have been clearer in his denouncement of white supremacy in that first debate, but it’s simply unfair to describe Trump as racist when he has denounced white supremacists and other hate groups on a host of other occasions. The political Left and many media organizations have asked Trump to denounce white supremacy repeatedly over the past four years, seeking to “trap” Trump time and again. For a few examples of how Trump has openly and repeatedly denounced white supremacy, racism, and every form of hate, see the following links:
https://www.usatoday.com/.../trump-and-white.../5883336002/
https://www.cbsnews.com/.../trump-denounces-white.../
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40929627
You can also easily search for compilation videos of Trump repeatedly denouncing white supremacy. Here’s just one of them:
Even though I plan to vote for Trump, I have no desire to be an apologist for him. But the refusal of many people, including Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, to acknowledge that Trump has repeatedly denounced white supremacy is simply dishonest. What’s more, many have refused to acknowledge how Trump’s policies have actually helped many Black and minority communities. Here’s one link that briefly discusses this (watching the 30-second embedded video should at least cause people to examine what he has actually done):
https://www.westernjournal.com/cnns-van-jones-trump-not.../
(5) While I believe Trump has done a lot more good than he is given credit for—and a lot more than I thought he would do—some of Trump’s greatest accomplishments may be what he *hasn’t* done. In 2016, I was also concerned about what I thought was a disdain for the Constitution, and I feared that Trump would rule in an authoritarian way that would result in the end of our Republic. But instead of abusing his presidential authority or seizing even greater power for the federal government, Trump has actually governed with much restraint. If Trump desired to establish an absolute tyranny over this nation, he could have used covid-19 as a pretext to do exactly that. Indeed, the entire United States could be under authoritarian emergency decrees like Australia and other nations. But instead of expanding the role of the federal government, Trump has largely left the response to covid-19 to state and local governments. To be sure, some on the Left have condemned Trump for not taking enough action, despite condemning his actions to close our borders early on (which is rightly within the President’s authority). But if Trump is the demagogue and tyrant that many have claimed, would we really *want* him to take that kind of control? I mean it when I say I have been shocked by how restrained Trump has actually been in his governance, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Based on the rhetoric from the Left these past few months, though, I believe they would govern in a much more authoritarian way (on covid and everything else). Which leads to my last point.
(6) For those willing to examine the evidence, I think it’s clear that Trump is not a racist, which would be one of my biggest concerns in voting for him. In contrast, some of the statements made by Joe Biden these past few months seem to be clearly racist (e.g., “[I]f you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't Black.”). These statements have thankfully at least been recognized by the media, but no one has decried Biden as a racist despite these gaffes. Why is this the case? I believe it is because the vast majority of major media networks overwhelmingly support Joe Biden and have done everything possible to harm President Trump. Some may call me a conspiracy theorist for this, but I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that the media leans left. This leftward lean and biased reporting should be of great concern to all Americans, as we should all care more about the truth than supporting or harming political candidates—regardless which direction one leans.
But it’s not just the major media companies. Virtually all of the major tech companies support Joe Biden, and they have demonstrated their leftward bent with censorship that should also concern everyone. I shared an article a week or so ago from Glenn Greenwald, by no means an apologist for Trump or Republicans, and he showed very clearly both the reality of this censorship and the dangerous consequences for our society.
But while both the media and Big Tech are clearly opposed to President Trump and have leveraged their influence to combat his reelection, the political Left has also fought tooth and nail these past four years to continually delegitimize Trump’s presidency. Indeed, many were calling for his impeachment even before the 2016 election. I understood this to some degree, as again I will say I did not vote for Trump in 2016 for the reasons I mentioned above. But the efforts to discredit and remove Trump from office under false pretenses (e.g., the Russia narrative that proved to be false) are a threat not only to President Trump but to our nation as a whole. Moreover, efforts to silence certain viewpoints and opinions have grown more intense over the past four years (hence the advent of “cancel culture”), and it is the political Left that is driving this censorship. President Trump, for all his flaws, has never (to my knowledge) called for the Left to be silenced or moved to censor them, but the Left and leftward leaning media and social media outlets have shown they will do just that.
In addition to advocating for the censorship of certain viewpoints, the political Left also either openly supports the defunding of local police departments or aligns itself with entities calling for such defunding. But anyone who is truly concerned about communities of color must recognize that defunding the police will not result in less harm to these communities; if anything, it will lead to more harm. This is why an overwhelming majority of Black Americans desire either the same or increased police presence in their communities; fewer than 20% want less police presence. If the Left genuinely cares for these communities, I would hope they would listen to the people who live there.
There is much more that I could say here (e.g., I could discuss the Left’s desire to pack the courts), but in short I believe that the policies of the Left that would come about as a result of a Biden/Harris victory would result in untold harm to thousands if not millions of people—especially minorities and the unborn. It is for this reason that I will vote for Trump this week, and I will personally do so with a clean conscience. I will vote in an effort to love my neighbors, especially those who are often forgotten by society. I do not mean to say this is the only way a Christian can vote, as again I support John Piper’s freedom of conscience as well as the right of many others to make a different decision. But for those who asked, I wanted to explain my decision.
For anyone who is interested in exploring these arguments further, below are three articles that make what I believe are very strong cases for casting a vote for Trump:
(1) Albert Mohler, “Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election”
https://albertmohler.com/.../christians-conscience-and...
Mohler was also a never-Trumper in 2016. I think he does an excellent job explaining why he has changed his mind in 2020. From the article:
“Let me be as clear as I know possible: President Trump's behavior on Twitter and his divisive comments and sub-presidential behavior are an embarrassment to me. Constantly. His arrogance and ego and constant need for adulation drive me to distraction. But character is some strange combination of the personal, the principled, and the practical. Let me put it another way—I cannot accept the argument that a calm man who affirms the dismembering of babies in the womb has a superior character to a man who rants like Genghis Khan but acts to preserve that life. In my ideal world, I would vote for a candidate in whom the personal, the principled, and the practical earn my admiration. I do not live in that world. I live in this world, and I must act accordingly.”
(2) Michael Brown, “Pastor John Piper and the 2020 Elections: A Respectful Response”
https://stream.org/pastor-john-piper-and-the-2020.../
While I disagree with Brown on some theological issues, he offers a direct response to Piper that is humble, gracious, and tactful. I think it’s a very wise and thoughtful piece. From the article:
“[W]hen it comes to listing the sins of Trump, Pastor Piper may have gone a little too far. Has Trump promoted or practiced sexual immorality since announcing his candidacy? To the contrary, hasn’t he expressed regret about some of his past actions? And does he get credit for keeping his promises and commitments in ways that few presidents in our lifetime have done?
Once again, I wholeheartedly agree with Piper’s emphasis on the gospel first (rather than “America first”).
But I wonder if future generations would understand if we explained the loss of our freedoms and the slaughter of millions of more babies by saying, ‘Yes, one party espoused these terrible policies. But we couldn’t vote for the man whose party opposed them because he was too boastful and divisive.’”
(3) Douglas Wilson, “7 Reasons Why It Is Possible for Christians to Vote for Trump in 2020 Without Getting a Defiled Conscience and/or Losing Their Soul”
https://dougwils.com/.../7-reasons-why-it-is-possible-for...
Wilson can often be a bit snarky in his articles, and I believe that’s also the case here, but his points are absolutely worth considering. Wilson also did not vote for Trump in 2016. From the article:
“Suppose [] you were a Jew exiled in Babylon, and there is a great pending showdown and battle between Cyrus the Great and Croesus of Lydia. Do you support Cyrus? Do you hope Cyrus wins? Cyrus is the anointed one (Is. 45:1), the one who is going to issue the decree allowing the Jews to return to the promised land in 538 B.C. (2 Chron. 36:23). He is also a pagan who refurbished temples for lots of gods.
And suppose you lived in Susa in the time of Ahasuerus, and were opposed to the politics of Haman. What were your practical options?
So if Daniel and Esther and Mordecai and Hezekiah and Joseph could function as political players with true integrity within the framework of those various pagan establishments, how much more should it be possible for a Christian today to function within our quasi-Christian, semi-pagan system? From the way Scripture tells their stories, it is self-evident that they functioned within their settings without compromise. They did not bend when it came to their own personal dedication to the living God, and as far as the larger (compromised) system went, they did what they could as they pushed in the best direction possible, out of the available options.
But this is only possible if a voice in such affairs (like a vote) is not sacramental. If advising the king of Babylon were tantamount to eating the food of the king of Babylon, then Daniel wouldn’t have done it.”
May God grant us all grace and wisdom in the coming days to act in ways that honor Him and that show love to our neighbors. And may we remember, whatever the outcome of this election, that God is ALWAYS on His throne:
“God reigns over the nations; God sits on his holy throne.” —Psalm 47:8
Dialogue Prompted by This Article (names changed to protect privacy):
David:
I don’t know what to tell you about your willful ignorance on the immigration issue. The coverage of it is widely available and very detailed, and packed with evidence. I cannot believe you can see any of it as morally acceptable.
Just cop to the fact that you are a one issue voter (abortion), and then spend some time thinking about the morality there.
I don’t know what else to say. I’m shocked that you have drifted so far from the basic moral precepts of the religion you claim. Your positions across the board are endorsements of really wicked things. You speak about empathy, but support the brutal treatment of the downtrodden and the weak. You call your endorsement of really destructive state power “mournful”. You can’t see beyond your own selfish dislike for public health measures. I really don’t know what to say. Christianity seems to, at the very least, call for loving your neighbor. You know damn well Trump doesn’t represent that. Our country’s immigration policy doesn’t represent that. White supremacy doesn’t represent that. Flaunting public health efforts doesnt represent that. Endorsing police brutality doesn’t represent that. But that’s where you are dude.
Michael:
David don't bother. I have wasted too much time already thinking I was talking to a rational person but once you go Trump, you have admitted your lack of character, morals, reason, and class.
Intelligent people don't need a several thousand word justification for their vote in today's situation. They just do not.
I'm done arguing with you Josh. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Maybe one day you'll use your powers for good. Until then, you're just a MAGA hat wearing "muh freedoms" keyboard warrior who just happens to know how to use grammar. Piety for piety's sake is no system for morality, and I agree you are a one-issue voter. But so am I. I vote for MY family's values. If you can imagine what you would do to defend your family, imagine what I will do for mine.
Response:
David and Michael, as always I’m grateful to have dialogue with you. I believe it is good healthy if people with opposing viewpoints and perspectives can maintain an open dialogue, as hopefully it helps all of us discover what is true, which will in turn help us better care for our neighbors. In light of the tone of your comments, I had contemplated whether or not it would be helpful to respond or not, but in the interest of seeking to maintain this open dialogue, I wanted to briefly address what you said.
First, as to being a single issue voter, you are absolutely right that I believe defending the rights of unborn human beings is of tremendous importance, but this does not mean that I care nothing for other issues or for the rights of countless others outside the womb. If this were the case, I would not have taken the time to address other relevant policies that I also believe are important. That said, I DO believe that whether or not a candidate works to protect the unborn is a FOUNDATIONAL issue, as I believe that any candidate who openly advocates for the murder of unborn human beings cannot be trusted to enact policies that are in the best interests of anyone. If this is what you mean by single issue voter, then I will accept that label, but understand that it’s because I believe the right to life is foundational to all other rights.
As to the immigration issue, I was specifically addressing the claim that 500 children had been callously separated from their parents. Drug trafficking and human trafficking (and the use of coyotes) are a reality at the border. I was not addressing immigration policy more broadly. This is what I said in my post:
“I am not saying that Trump’s immigration policies are perfect (there is room for debate there), but to claim that Trump, through the work of scores of law enforcement officials, has callously separated more than 500 children from their parents is not supported by evidence (though I am open to hearing evidence to the contrary).”
As I stated, I am open to hearing evidence that definitively shows that the Trump administration has purposely separated children from their parents (or lost the children’s parents) in some malicious plot to harm these children or others. David, you said that the evidence is widely available and very detailed. I’m sincerely asking: send me links to this evidence. Truly, sincerely, I desire to know and stand for the truth, so if you have access to evidence that you can easily send, I would genuinely like to see it. As I’ve shared on several other posts these past few months, my views on covid, masks, etc. have not remained static but have changed when the weight of the evidence warrants such changes. If that is the case with what’s happening to these children, I am more than willing to change my position and would denounce what Trump and others have done.
Briefly as to immigration more broadly, in what ways do you believe that the Trump administration has drastically changed immigration policy from the Obama administration? Again I am not saying that Trump has done everything perfectly, as I don’t believe that is the case, but I’m just not seeing a drastic difference when one considers what was allegedly taking place under the Obama administration. See this article for one example (and for what are pretty big differences in media coverage):
https://nypost.com/.../when-the-villain-is-obama-not.../amp/
David, as to your claim that my “positions across the board are endorsements of really wicked things,” I take these accusations very seriously. But as written, these are very general and loaded statements. I ask that you clarify what you mean so that I can repent as necessary or be cleared if the charges are not warranted.
First, in what ways do I “support the brutal treatment of the downtrodden and the weak”? To my knowledge, I have never done this, and I would be the first to condemn myself if I advocated for this.
Second, how have I “endorse[d] really destructive state power”? Do you mean voting for Trump or my recounting of the many good things the Trump administration has done? Could you clarify which of the points I made are destructive (e.g., standing up for the rights of Uyghur Muslims, the rights of the people of Hong Kong, the rights of the unborn, the rights of minorities, etc.)?
Third, you are right that I don’t like wearing masks or lockdowns, but I’m not sure if I can say more clearly than I already have that it is NOT about my preferences. I have recounted, on numerous occasions, my concerns for the MANY people who have been harmed by masks and the COUNTLESS people whose lives have been destroyed by lockdowns. But every single time I have advocated for those who have been harmed by such measures, I have been decried as someone who is selfish or who only cares about my freedoms. Michael and David, do you realize that it is the poor and marginalized who have been harmed the most by many of these policies?
David, I agree with you—WHOLEHEARTEDLY—that Christ has called us to love our neighbors. Our disagreements are over what is the most loving thing we can do for all our neighbors. I made very clear in my post that I do not condone many of Trump’s actions, but the way he has governed these past four years has actually been in the best interests of many (minorities, the unborn, etc.). On balance, at least, I believe that a Trump administration will better secure the rights of everyone better than a Biden/Harris administration. We may disagree on that, and that’s fine, but it would be unfair not to acknowledge the good that Trump has done these four years (if nothing else the good that I recounted in my post).
As to white supremacy, did you read the articles I linked to? Did you watch the video of Trump denouncing, time and again, white supremacy and every form of hate? David and Michael, do you think it is at least possible that your understanding of Trump as a white supremacist or of Trump supporting white supremacist policies is inaccurate? How many times does Trump have to denounce these things before you would be willing to acknowledge that he has been wrongly accused of holding these views?
As to flaunting public health efforts, if a government entity ever recommended something that was harmful, or at least did more harm than good, would you oppose it? I believe you both would recognize that sometimes people in positions of power and authority get things wrong (you would say that is true with Trump). Is it not also possible that health agencies have gotten it wrong on covid? This is all I have been arguing for months: that the government interventions have been doing more harm than good—and that the good they have accomplished is minimal. To claim that disagreement with these policies is “flaunting” public health efforts is to misrepresent the concerns of many people—concerns that are based on a great deal of evidence.
Michael:
Josh no. I said I was done arguing with you. I have my limits and you reached them. The mental gymnastics you have had to go through to justify your actions show me you are morally bankrupt and ethically ill. Do not play the pious game with me, I can see through you every time.
Response:
Finally, when have I EVER endorsed police brutality? David, I have been through law enforcement training, I have studied numerous court cases and watched myriad police videos, and I teach criminal justice and legal studies. Whenever a law enforcement officer unjustly uses force, I would be the first to decry it as unjust and unconstitutional (you could ask my students and they would tell you). It seems that your claim that I endorse policy brutality either stems from a failure to understand use of force or a belief that all uses of force are unjust or unconstitutional. If you would be willing, I would take as much time as you would like to explain when various uses of force are justified, and I could even try to arrange for you to come to one of the police departments we work with to go through one of their training simulators. Michael, if you are ever in the area, I would be happy to do the same for you. I think a lot misconceptions about use of force come about honestly, as those who do not work in law enforcement do not have an accurate understanding of how these situations can and must realistically be resolved. Moreover, unless someone has actually experienced these types of scenarios or has been through some amount of training, you really cannot understand why courts rule the way they do and why officers are trained the way they are trained.
Finally, Michael, I honestly don’t know what to say if you can so easily dismiss the thoughts of other people based on political affiliation or who one votes for. You not only dismiss me with your derogatory words (e.g., “you're just a MAGA hat wearing ‘muh freedoms’ keyboard warrior who just happens to know how to use grammar”), but more importantly you dismiss a thoughtful, reasoned post and fail to interact with any of the actual evidence (I.e., “Intelligent people don't need a several thousand word justification for their vote in today's situation.”). As to your being “done arguing” with me, I have not sought to argue with you at any point but have sought to ask questions, provide evidence, and draw reasonable conclusions. You have always been the one to initiate conversations on my posts, which I welcome and appreciate, but you have often not engaged with the actual evidence that I have presented. Instead, you dismiss these attempts as the ramblings of a Trump supporter (or some other derogatory term). If you would ever be willing, I would welcome genuine interaction with what I’ve shared here as well as responses to the evidence I put forward on other posts.
Michael and David, I want to end by saying that I love you, that I care about you, and that I am for you. We may reach different conclusions on many issues, but I still value you both and believe you to be two of the smartest guys I know. I welcome ongoing dialogue, and I hope you will be willing to engage with the substantive issues I raise in the future. And if you are ever in the Greenville area and would be open for conversation over a cup of coffee or lunch, please reach out to me. I’d love to see you both.