Many in my generation are losing the desire to be involved in politics and the public square. We are becoming disillusioned with what we are seeing. The purpose of this post which is more of an essay than a blog, is that it is to be my last statement on the politically driven chaos that is plaguing America today. I’m honestly sick of this as a whole and am becoming more and more disillusioned with the evangelical “Christianity” that surrounds me and claims to be the truth. I am well aware that what I say may be controversial to some and have weighed the consequences before writing this. I believe that these are consequences worth having to endure however because it is better for people to know me than to believe a lie.
If I were to be able to vote today, I would either not vote at all or vote for a third-party candidate such as the candidate which my parents are supporting — Evan McMullin. This statement of course is heavily controversial amongst the people around me, and the fact that my parents are in the “hashtag never Trump” crowd has led to derision and allegations against them that they are Pharisees, hypocrites, what’s wrong with America or even that they are non-Christians. Due to the fact that they are not Islamophobic and believe that Constitutionally Muslims have the right to build Mosques and practice their faith, they are accused of being the type who “would let the Antichrist into their homes and give him tea and biscuits,” or it is claimed that they are “closet liberals” and “nasty liberals are the scum of the earth.” Obviously this rhetoric has had an effect on me, and this does manipulate where my bias lies. (How can it not?) The thing though is that just because one has a bias, that does not mean that their bias is incorrect. No one can be absolutely objective, but reasoning through the bias can show as to if it is true or not. For example, a child may have a bias towards candy in opposition to vegetables; candy tends to taste better, looks better, and makes the child feel happy, while vegetables are mostly disgusting, taste bad, and are the last thing that you want to eat on your plate. Yet upon learning about vegetables and reasoning through it, one sees that their bias was wrong — vegetables really are better for you. It does not mean that they like vegetables, (the bias is still there) but they now can affirm contrary to it that vegetables are better for you. In the same way, if you are of those rare children who preferred vegetables, your bias was confirmed. In the same way, I am (and have been) investigating as to if my parent given bias is valid. Upon thinking quite a bit on this, I find that it is valid. I honestly wish that I could end the discussion there, but there are a number of people who shall remain unnamed that have harmed our family due to our “never-Trump stance,” and I expect that this “confession” of mine — that I stand with my parents — will get me in more trouble. Due to this, I’ve constructed a miniature apologetic which is not meant to convince Trump supporters to abandon their position because that is nearly impossible by now. Rather, I simply want to defend myself and family so that we will be left alone. I ask though that any Trump supporter who may be reading this will listen carefully to what I have to say and weigh it against history, reason, objective morality, and the Scriptures which are the ultimate criterion for any genuine follower of Christ. I hope that this shows you at least partly as to why you are losing your young people. At least you will know why you lost me.
I suppose that I will begin my apologetic for holding to this position of mine by stating a few of the statements made by the Trump apologists in defense of Trump and their “on the aggressive” attacks against anti-Trump propaganda. The first thing that comes to mind is a particular argument that has been used far too frequently. The argument is that God can use fallen people to do His work, and that therefore God can use Trump to save this nation. There are obvious problems with this argument which I will mention briefly. First of all, as for who God uses, that is purely up to Him not us. We cannot point to Trump and say that God will use Him to “save us” because we have no idea as to if God will, and I will argue that God has never said such things about Trump. Another problem with this argument is that as for what the argument means by “God can use fallen people” is vague to say the least. One can easily counter that argument by saying that God can use people to bring judgment upon a nation, and that Trump matches the judgment aspect more than the “salvation” aspect. This statement would have Scriptural support such as when for example Isaiah 10 mentions that God used Assyria to be “… the rod of My anger and the staff in whose hands is my indignation, I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury….” (Isaiah 10:5-6). Using such verses, one can argue that Trump is God’s instrument of wrath against godless America, and one still cannot use that to support him even in that regard because Isaiah 10 is also about God’s judgment against Assyria due to “… the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness…” (Isaiah 10:12). I also will mention that one cannot argue that “Well, that’s just a nation not a person” because right here in verse 12 it is speaking about a person, the king of Assyria. So to summarize, while one can argue that God uses people, it does not therefore follow that “you must vote for Trump,” because he can be used as judgment rather than salvation, and God is not impartial in His judgment. He will judge the instrument as well as that which He uses it upon. Just because God used the king of Assyria does not mean that God made the king holy.
The next similar argument that is often raised particularly recently with the discovery of the immoral things that Trump claimed to do to multiple women along with the fact that he has committed adultery multiple times as evidenced by his many wives is that of David. The argument goes that if one wants to condemn Trump for the things that he has done in the past then one would also have to condemn David who committed adultery and murdered Uriah. Yet, one cannot condemn David because he was a man who was said to be after God’s own heart, and through his family line would come the Messiah. Therefore we are not to condemn Trump because God clearly did not condemn David despite what he did, instead God used him in a mighty way. The Trump apologist then goes on the offensive in saying that we who oppose Trump are like the Pharisees, and are of the type who would throw stones at the woman who committed adultery (John 8:2-11). Trump is a “brother in Christ” according to the people around him, and we are being legalistic in condemning him and not voting for him due to what he has done in the past. We reject the grace of God, and are hypocrites to the absolute degree. This is one of the more potent arguments that are used by the Trump apologists — not because it is good but because it is easy to refute. Rather it is potent because it is laced with emotion that is held together by bad theology which people appear to honestly embrace in issues that raise high emotions and opinions. I’m not going to delve into this theological problem that much because that may be worthy and lengthy enough to fill an entire book. The first thing that I will point out is that when the argument states that “One cannot condemn David” that is simply untrue. Is the person who makes this statement really arguing that one should not say that it was wrong for David to commit adultery or murder because he was “specially chosen by God?” A conclusion of this nature is absolutely absurd. If this aspect of the argument is true then one can say that if Jesus were to theoretically murder a four-year old child then He would still be sinless and it would not be wrong because He was definitely “used by the Father.” Another problem with the statement that “you cannot condemn David” is that it is unbiblical. In 2 Samuel 12:1-12 it tells us how the LORD sent Nathan to David to rebuke David for the great sin that he committed. Therefore, one cannot argue that it is wrong to condemn David because Nathan clearly condemned David — by the command of God by the way. This is not the center of the “David argument;” however, the essence of it is that yes David committed sin, but he repented and God forgave him. In the same way, yes Trump said and did those immoral things, but he has repented and has been “born-again,” so one should still vote for Trump. The problem with this argument is that it ignores two facts with the first one being that sin has consequences. Second Samuel 12:11 states that God will “… raise up evil against you from your own household…” due to David’s sin, and such things did take place. Absalom who was one of David’s sons led a large revolt against David and forced David to flee his kingdom as his son made himself king of Israel. In 2 Samuel 2:15 it tells us that God struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David and… the child died. Sin has consequences — enormous ones — and while David repented and was forgiven, he still had to deal with what his sin reaped. In the same way, the President of the United States is (supposed) to be a representation as to what America is to the surrounding world. He or she does not have to be perfect or anything like that, but he or she should at least should be striving to do good and have a semi-clean background. Trump does not match either of these things for the Christian because he has done and said such things in the past, and he does not strive to do good in the present as evidenced by his words and deeds — not to mention his past statement to Christians that they should look for a porn video that a Mexican model allegedly made who Trump slandered. The fact that he may have sexually assaulted a woman(or women) and even entertained such a notion should disqualify him from being President, just as many Trump apologists rightly state that Hillary should be disqualified from being President due to other reasons. One also cannot argue that based upon my logic David should not have continued being king because he was just that, a king. It was not a democracy or a democratic republic, and it is not like the people could remove him. Now setting this aside, I do not think that one even needs to argue this far in response to the “David argument” as there is a more simple way of doing so. I will go ahead and grant that if a man has committed adultery for example and has repented to God, we should not hold him accountable for that at all, but the problem in using this argument is that Trump has not repented and is not of Christ. This is a radical and heavily controversial stance, but Scripturally it is true. Christ states that, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments,” (John 14:15) and that “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:17-20) My question is what is Trump’s fruit? The Biblical and moral stance (you are objectively and bluntly holding to an immoral position if you disagree) shows that he is producing only bad fruit. There is no way that you can argue contrary to this without being simply repulsive and embody the reason why my generation is leaving. You may try to counter with “Do not judge…” (Matt. 7:1), but that is absolutely self-refuting. To say that one should not judge is to judge those who judge others. Rather you should take the entire context in its entirety which states “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matt. 7:1-2) There is no contradiction within the full statement that Jesus made because it is not saying do not judge, but that one should not judge without evaluating oneself. To quote the verses that follow “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:3-5). Within this text, you see that the implicit meaning is that you do take the speck out of your brother’s eye, but you are not to do so while the same speck is in your own eye because “… in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” This passage is standing against those who judge without acknowledging the hypocrisy in themselves. They say that one must do something but will not bother to do that very thing themselves. Judging is inevitable. The issue is if you are judging hypocritically. To get back to the subject matter; however, Trump has clearly never genuinely repented. I will just say that Scripturally there is a difference between David and Trump. There is a difference between the child who is genuinely sorry for his iniquity against his parents and wants to repair his relationship with them and the child who is sorry only because he got caught. There is a difference between David’s psalm of repentance to God in which he says that, “Against You, and You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight…” (Psalm 51:4 — I suggest that you read the entire Psalm), and Trump who has stated that he does not need to repent to God with his “repentance” before man being more or less that “I’m sorry, but this is not important as there are bigger issues.” The final argument that I will raise is that those who hold to the “David argument,” cannot do so because to do so would be hypocritical. They demand that we “show grace and forgive” Donald Trump for the things that he did in the past, but they refuse to do the same for Hillary. I mean, Benghazi, Bill Clinton’s adultery and the accusations of sexual abuse, the notorious “emails,” etc., are all things of the past. Therefore we are to show grace to Hillary Clinton because she is a “Christian” and attends her Methodist Church more so than Trump ever has attended his Church. Hillary has stated that there were mistakes made, “but there are bigger issues.” Hillary also claims to be a “Christian,” so how do you differentiate between her and Trump? If Trump apologists want to be consistent with their argument then they have to forgive Hillary just as they expound that we must forgive Trump. The problem is that they will “never forgive Killary” because to do so would undermine their argument because then they would have to never forgive Trump as well. This is blatantly hypocritical which therefore means that I suggest that Trump apologists read Matthew 7:1-5 and apply it before critiquing the “never Trump” crowd.
Another argument that is also used in support of Trump which is the most emotionally laced of them all is the issue of the unborn. The argument is that Trump is pro-life while Hillary is pro-murdering innocent infants so therefore one must choose Trump. The first way that I would respond to this would be in an affirmation that yes the murder of infants is immoral, and we are to fight against this. It is morally evil for one to support a candidate who supports what is essentially the American genocide which is why I of course do not support Hillary. The problem though is that Trump, or any political candidate in general that is running for president, is not the answer to this. I must remind you that a majority of the Supreme Court Justices that were within the majority of Roe v. Wade were conservative Justices. Five of the seven Justices who were in the majority in favor of abortion were appointed by Republican Presidents. (The majority within the majority in favor of abortion were conservative Republicans– think about that). Therefore one cannot argue based upon history that Trump will appoint a conservative Justice who will “fight against abortion and uphold Christian values.” The argument that “We need to vote for Trump because he will appoint conservative Justices” is simply irrational in light of history because it means nothing. The argument is using a “what if” that is not guaranteed and is even unlikely if one uses history to determine the future. The question must then be raised as to what can we do then about the murder of the unborn? To this I answer by saying that rather than look to a political power to combat this, it is about time that we instead decided to work into the hearts of people. To be even more specific, within the lives of the children who are growing up today who will inherit this world someday. Even if we were to theoretically reverse Roe v. Wade, it means nothing if we still have a society that supports it. They would simply reinstate it in the future. That is why we need to instead work first of all within the Church and our own families, then the youth within our world, building a culture that values life above pleasure or ease. We need to move their eyes away from their narcissistic selves and the world and allow them to see Christ in all of His glory because Christ is the one who changes the hearts of people.
One of the most common arguments that is used by “Trump supporting pastors” would have to be what I will call the Caesar argument. This argument uses Mark 12:14-17 in which “They came and said to Him, ‘Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’ But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’ They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were amazed at Him.” Trump supporters interpret this passage to mean that we must, “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” (Mark 12:17) and to render to Caesar means to vote for Trump. They expound that we are to obey this command which means that we must vote for Trump, and we are being bad citizens if we do not. To this I would respond that yes we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. We must pay taxes and obey Romans chapter 13. Yet the thing that Trump supporters seem to forget is that we are to render “to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) My question for the Trump supporter is what does belong to God? The denarius held the image of Caesar, so what is in God’s image? The answer is that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (Genesis 1:27) If this statement that comes from Scripture is true, then what is to be rendered to God is our very lives for we are His property. That means that while we are to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, we must not in doing so not give to God what is God’s for He is more important than Caesar. If your conscience, after being led and informed by the Holy Spirit, is violated in voting for Trump or Hillary, then do not vote for them. My Christian witness belongs to God, and it is important to Him. So for me to work against Him by voting for Trump or Hillary though I know that in doing so I defile my conscience and malign my Lord in the sight of others in doing so, then I am sinning against God. I have heard preachers argue that “To be a good citizen of Heaven means that you must be a good citizen in this world. You are a citizen of the United States so you must, ‘vote right.’ You must vote for the lesser of two evils.” To this I would respond that this is not a lesser of two evils scenario because you have other choices. Do not use the “we have only two parties” argument because it is bluntly a lie in light of history. (Remember the Whigs for example? There was once a time in which the current Republican Party itself did not even exist.) Even if it was true that there were only two political parties there still is the option to not vote for the sake of Christian witness and conscience. The Christian is primarily a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven — not of any earthly nation — we are in the world but not of the world. Patriotism and nationalism are great, but they have caused problems with Christianity historically in the past when they have been put over the Gospel. Nationalism gone overboard can be an enemy of Christ with the clearest example being of the ancient Jews who rejected Christ because He was a suffering Messiah. They rejected Christianity because it expounded globalism — that the message of Christianity went to the unclean Gentiles as well as the Jews. Jesus did not preach of a Jewish nationalism, but of the Kingdom of Heaven, that the message of salvation that comes from the mouth of Jews would spread to all the Earth (As evidenced by His Jewish disciples who were the first believers in Him). Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven must come first for the Christian — we must render to God what is God’s. If it is true that to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s is just as important as rendering to God what is God’s then all of early Christianity lived in sin. When Rome was persecuting the early Church, they were brought before courts and magistrates and were told to perform their “civic duty” to Rome by sacrificing to the Roman gods or even worshiping Caesar as a god himself. They did not “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s;” however, and disobeyed the law and were thrown to the lions, beheaded, hanged, drowned, etc. as a consequence. This clearly shows that to render to God what is God’s is far more important than rendering anything to an empire, kingdom, or democratic Republic. You are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but you are not to in doing so defile or take away from God what is God’s.
The final argument that is clearly the most-used argument that Trump apologists use in favor of Trump is the notorious argument simply called “The lesser of two evils.” The argument goes that while both candidates are “evil” we are obligated to vote for the lesser of two evils which happens to be Trump. I have already written on this briefly in a previous blog post which was called “Musings on Acts 24:16” which I’d advise that you read because I do not intend on repeating the same thing again. I’ll just say though that this argument is more or less a false dilemma. This is not a “lesser of two evils” option because this is not an A or B situation, but one that gives you the choices of A, B, C, D, etc. There are good third-party candidates out there, and you cannot say that they cannot win because we have historically had Presidents who were third-party candidates. You can vote and not defile your conscience if you choose to. The problem is that people close themselves willingly into a tight box in which only Trump and Hillary are options though that is not the case in the real world. They will then argue in response to this though that “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary.” This argument can be persuasive but in actuality is not that good. The same argument can be raised from the Democratic point of view in which “Not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump.” More than that, another argument can be made that “Voting for either Trump or Hillary is a vote against God as Lord,” and it would still work as an argument. One can continue to make such statements, but it does not mean that they hold up to reality. The statement that if one votes for a third-party candidate then it is a vote for a particular major party candidate does not match up to our Constitution and how it grants everyone the right to vote with no coercion. The biggest flaw with the “Not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary” argument is that within reality such a possibility can be avoided. If all of the people who claim to “vote for Trump despite his wickedness due to him being the lesser of two evils” were to get out of their self-made position and vote for a third-party candidate together, the third party candidate would win. More than that a third party candidate would have a better chance at beating Hillary than Trump within the “undecided” crowd if only for the lack of a controversial background or controversial actions. If a candidate rose up against Hillary with none of the garbage that Trump carries then it will be a case scenario in which Hillary is the controversial one and the opposing candidate has no such controversy thus giving him or her the advantage. It is more logical to argue that “A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary,” than the contrary position that millions embrace. Look at the ever-changing polls, all it takes is one revelation, and polls can swing towards either candidate, so it would be better to vote for another candidate who has a better chance of beating Hillary due to the lack of controversy. Imagine a candidate who would not be affected by polls because they have nothing to hide. You may counter this by saying “Trump won’t win precisely because of people like you which will not vote for Trump,” to which I respond by saying,”A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary. It’s because of people like you who vote for Trump rather than a clean third-party candidate that won’t win due to you voting for Trump which will thus give Hillary the Presidency.” The same argument can be used both ways which therefore means that you have to evaluate the claims of the argument which I find to not be convincing. We could just keep going around in circles on this debate. Even if Trump were to theoretically be able to win the election, it still does not follow that it is right for the Christian to vote for him. As for the “lesser of two evils” argument itself, I will mention something briefly about it. In the previous blog post, I argued, using the analogy of terrorists, as to the idea itself. I argued that it is better to choose no evil at all than to summit to practicing the lesser of two evils. While I still stand to that; however, I want to mention that I hold to the opinion that having to choose the lesser of two evils is relative to what you are dealing with in life. For example, when one is facing cancer you have two options — chemotherapy or dealing with the cancer and ultimately dying by it. This here is a valid scenario for “the lesser of two evils” because those are your only two options, and while chemo is terrible, cancer is the worst evil. In the case of the analogy that I put forth with the terrorists, you have the options to commit suicide and the other captives will live or don’t do so and they will die. I argued that in this scenario you commit no evil because you do not have the right to take your life. God will judge the terrorist for their actions. You are the victim not the perpetrator. As for the “lesser of two evils” in the case of Trump v. Hillary it is invalid because one does have other options that one can take and still retain a clear conscience before God and men. There is no “lesser of two evils” because there are more options by definition a scenario in which one faces the “lesser of two evils problem” is when there are only two options that can be made as a whole.
I’m going to close this “apologetic” of sorts by going the absurd but truthful route which is that all of these arguments and counter arguments are irrelevant to my younger generation. Our objection to Trump apologists is not a logical one but a moral one. It is that even if Trump is the “lesser of two evils” that is irrelevant because he should not be where he is in the first place. The problem that we have with people who argue that he should be elected due to him being the lesser evil is that we are continually told that “we’re stuck with him” because the people chose him, and therefore we must vote for him. My generation simply sees this as bullying to be blunt. We see people who voted him in who are putting on the “I didn’t want him but we’re stuck with him” mask to try to bully others into electing him. You tell us not to bully, but then act like bullies when it comes to Trump and those who will not vote for him. While I am going to take a step back from the others within my generation and point out that not all who now support Trump supported him then, I still have to admit that this allegation of hypocrisy is absolutely true for quite a few Trump supporters.
It is important that I mention that I have abandoned any notion of being within the Republican Party long before Trump as have many of my generation for various reasons. I am not capable of giving reasons as to why everyone else has abandoned the Republican Party, but I can give at least a few of mine, so I hope that through me you can at least slightly see as to why you are losing us. One of the problems that I see with the Republican Party is that it is bluntly Islamophobic and stands against the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State. The type of rhetoric that is expounded by Trump today has been expounded long before Trump had ever arrived on the scene. There is a hatred that is prevalent here in the West for Muslims of all types, and it messes with me personally on an emotional level because I genuinely find these people to simply be precious to me. For the Christian, it is problematic for you to deny them the ability to come here because for many of them a Christian would never have the ability to even enter their native countries — much less be their friends or discuss religion and Jesus Himself with them. The Church has spent years upon years praying that Christians would have the chance to enter and live in these countries to speak with the people of The Qur’an, yet now when they come to us we want to not let them into the safety of our country much less our neighborhoods. While I understand “screening” those who come to this nation for safety purposes, I reject those who ban all Muslims from entering this country and refuse to let those who are in this country from practicing their religion within this nation. Far too many “Christians” consider Muslims to be the “enemy,” yet they ignore the fact that even if so Jesus gave us a particular command which is that “… I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matt. 5:44). Therefore we are to love those who believe in their Prophet Muhammad. John 1:1-2 states that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.”and John 1:14 states that “… the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” yet if we believe that Jesus was God incarnate, that “…the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” why don’t we obey what He commands? In John 14:24, Jesus says, “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.” Does this verse not show that those who refuse to obey His commands do not love Him? Therefore I must love my Muslim neighbors all the more because I don’t even consider them to be an enemy but a people who are precious to me. I now must state that I’m not going to go into the Constitutional reasons as to why I believe that the Republican Party is wrong in how it discriminates against Muslims which contradicts the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and state because that should be self-evident, and others have already written countless words on it better than I can. My only purpose here is to show one of the reasons as to why “Republican Christianity” has lost me — not to mention the Republican Party itself.
While there are multiple other reasons as to why I have abandoned any notion of joining the Republican Party and am disillusioned by “conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, American Christianity,” my biggest concern would have to be its nationalism and patriotism at the cost of others. The American “Church” holds to a huge opposition to globalism which is at an extreme. Yes, it is right for you to stand against the nations of the world demanding for “one world religion” which also would desecrate Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. Yes, I understand and comply to certain aspects of the opposition to globalism, yet I will not do so at the cost of others. I will not embrace the nationalism which states that, “we are going to build a wall and others will pay for it!” which would damage an entire foreign nation if enacted. I also reject patriotism if it elevates country over God, the Constitution over the Word of God, and America over the Church and its witness. It is a false statement that the man who stands against America is instantly not a Christian, and it is a true statement that the man who puts America over the Kingdom of Heaven is idolizing America over their relationship with God. This leads into my final point which is the ultimate reason as to why I wrote this blog in the first place.
I’m aware that many may ask as to why I even wrote this blog, and others may even accuse me of simply being an instigator of conflict within the Church. To this I will answer that this is important because it is a Church problem — an idolatry problem. The central problem that I have is that the Church has made politics her God. This criticism can go in any direction be it the “Bible-believing” preacher who is preaching that we must support Trump, a “liberal” preacher that teaches that we must support Hillary, or even an “Independent” teacher expounding that you must vote for a third-party candidate. This is one of my biggest issues with the Church today, and it is a critical one for me. We put politics before God so therefore we vote for an immoral man like Trump or a woman who supports the murder of children just for the sake of “winning.” We preach sermons either for or against a political candidate only for the sake of politics not due to a concern based upon Scripture. We vote for Trump or Hillary even though in doing so we ruin our Christian witness and slander the Church. There are people who do not know Christ who hold an immense disdain for either candidate due to Trump’s racism towards certain ethnicities and treatment of women, or for Hillary’s email controversy, and for them to see us publicly (especially spiritual leaders) support Trump or Hillary would lead them to find us as sickening and will never even listen to when we talk about Christ. They honestly believe that where we stand is where Christ stands so there is no way that they will want to hear anything about Him. Yet the Church does not care that her witness has been slandered because politics is her God. I will not fall in compliance to this stance. These people are more important than a political agenda. From here the intelligent criticism of what I’ve just said is that I have just mentioned how people put Trump and the Republican Party or Hillary and the Democratic Party before Christ and our witness, but why haven’t I mentioned those who choose anti-Trump propaganda for example as their idol? To this I respond by saying that while I believe that voting for a third-party candidate like Evan or not voting all is the correct choice Biblically, if I were to take that message and place it before God Himself and Scripture which I am deriving my very message from than I am simply committing idolatry against God. My focus should be on furthering the Kingdom of Heaven and not a temporary election. Answering this objection aside, the problem that the Church needs to address is its idolatry, because this is one element that is leading to the loss of my generation. We see ministers preaching in the pulpit of how you must vote for such and such a candidate or rant on a particular political issue to which the congregation responds with thunderous applause with cheers mingled in and proclaim afterwards that, “it was of the Holy Spirit!” Yet it was not of the Holy Spirit, but it was a political rally. This only breeds atheism within my generation because this cannot be of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit does not move people to support a man who talks about how he is going to sexually molest a woman and owns countless strip clubs and casinos that only serve to perpetuate immorality. Yet people claim that this is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit “told me” to vote for Trump for example though this cannot be. This leads my generation to search earnestly for that which we are thirsting for –the true Holy Spirit. We don’t find the genuine Holy Spirit within the “American” Church; however, so we leave the Church or don’t believe that the Holy Spirit actually exists which then leads to us doubting as to if the concept of God is rational at all. This may seem rather extreme, and it is not my position and is not a rational position at all, but my generation tends to do this. They get so frustrated at the alleged “Church,” that they give up on God or the Church entirely. My generation does seek to know who God is but you refuse to show it to us but instead give us “Christian phrases” most of which are unbiblical. For example awhile back I noticed a problem with one of the songs that we were singing during a worship service that expounded a message that bluntly undermined the Gospel and also directly contradicted the Sermon on the Mount. So I asked a Church leader as to if he recognized the problem with the song and as to if he would cut it or at least speak a bit from the Sermon on the Mount and indirectly address it. He responded by saying that while what I was saying was true, “It is too hard for you students.” Essentially he was saying that he would rather present us with easy to hear music that expounded error than the Gospel and the commands of Christ because they are “too tough.” I understand his heart and he probably did not mean all that he said, and it is important that I mention that, but sadly quite a number of ministers hold to this. They believe that all we need to know is that “God loves us,” and that is all that we can even handle. What they don’t recognize is that we hear that “God loves us,” but that love is undefined. They spoon feed us with this “love” but it is a love devoid of the Cross and the actual grace of God. We sing of His grace, of His love, yet they never bother to teach us as to what they actually mean and even are. During “the sinner’s prayer,” they say that we must “confess of our sin and repent,” but they never even teach on sin and repentance from sin. Essentially to use the Biblical analogy of giving those who are young in the faith “milk,” while those who are mature in the faith receive, “meat,” they only give us the milk, and sometimes they don’t even give us the milk at all. Yet despite this we certainly receive plenty of political rhetoric with the Church now being the main source of that. It has reached the point that I do not care as to who Christians vote for privately. Rather I am concerned that the Church has traded her Lord for the world of politics. The philosopher Jacques Ellul once said that “Politics is the church’s worst problem. It is her worst temptation, the occasion of her greatest disasters, the trap continually set for her by the prince of this world.” Perhaps we as a Church should have listened to this. We haven’t, and we’ve made politics our god and have lost Christ. You have not lost oh so much of my generation because we have just decided to reject God, no we are rejecting God because you have rejected Him. On the day that the Church of America is more focused on Kingdom of Heaven rather than politics and patriotism, that will be the day in which we begin to return. On the day that the Church raises Christ up, that is the day in which the searching souls of my generation will come to Him. “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life” (John 3:14-15).
Personal Reflections 