Philosophical Theology

Whether portraying spiritual closeness with Roman Catholic clergymen, or painting a picture of our need for a fresh polemic to refute them(!), Carl Trueman’s brush is often broad and his hues blurred. 

Trueman’s latest masterpiece contrasts what he calls “Trumpite ‘evangelicalism’” with “Biden’s brand of ‘devout’ Catholicism.” He asks his readers to consider, “Which is more threatening” to the Christian? Trueman predicts “it will be a truly difficult {question} to answer with any great conviction when entering the voting booth.” I can’t but wonder, with whom does Trueman believe he shares his predictive undecidedness?

Assuming Trump and Biden are still on the ballot in seven months, I find no reason to doubt the voting convictions of my liberal and conservative friends, or that in November Christians will vote one way or another without much hesitation. After all, when have we been offered two more polarizing candidates with glaringly antithetical agendas? 

Let’s run with that. Trueman is outraged by Trump promoting a Bible containing reprints of several of America’s documents, believing that Trump does not distinguish the canon from Thomas Jefferson’s writings. Whereas Biden “spits” on the sacred. 

By Trueman’s calculations, one party’s candidate is a huckster who hides behind a false religiosity, while another overtly desecrates all that Christians hold sacred. In passing we might note that an attack on the sacred is something that can be assessed objectively, whereas one’s private-intention to deceive to the level of huckster* is not so easily discerned.

Since we cannot discern motive, why not make it easier on ourselves and judge what can (and may) be judged? Rather than trying to discern which candidate has the blackest heart, what if we just assume that the light of nature has grown equally dim among the leading two candidates? As a clarifying exercise, let’s assume one candidate overtly seeks to destroy Christian and American values from a purely secular perspective, and the other candidate is toying covertly with Christians to advance his own MAGA agenda. With those sorts of cancelling-out variables off the table, is there anything left to evaluate that might keep us from flipping a coin on November 5?

For Trueman, at least in one significant respect, “there seems little difference between Biden and his opponent.”

So, why not let any such commonly shared negatives be removed from the presidential assessment equation?

Personalities and perceived evils aside, in the past seven years has Trueman not assessed the value that he-himself places on the policies of the two leading candidates? More to the point, why does Trueman believe evangelicals are incapable of drawing informed conclusions, or have not developed unwavering political convictions over the two presidential front runners? At the very least, hasn’t Trueman yet considered for himself the value of which candidate would more likely appoint judges that align with his Christian worldview, or be more inclined to defend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law, if not also biblical principles?

I don’t believe Trueman is just trying to be provocative to make a point. No, that would be deceptively childish. Unlike my take on Trump, I do take Dr. Trueman literally, but not always seriously. (Whereas I tend to take Trump seriously, just not literally.) With all the judgement of charity I can muster toward a brother in the faith (the Reformed faith!), I believe Trueman does struggle with which candidate is more or less antagonistic to Christianity, if not also American values, (just as I believe that Trueman thinks he has more spiritual closeness with some papists than some evangelicals). As unfortunate as I might find those sorts of things, given Trueman’s apparent undecidedness and current lack of conviction over which candidate he prefers, I can understand why he has a difficult time recognizing that evangelicals aren’t as tentative as he over the question of which candidate would better serve our country and the church. After all, we all can tend to think on some level or another that if we-ourselves can’t successfully navigate an issue, it must be difficult for everyone else. In this case, I’m pretty certain Trueman’s lack of political conviction has caused him to read the Christian populace wrongly. I would even venture to guess that he will solve his own political conundrum by early November.

Although all individual evangelicals won’t vote for the same candidate, the question at hand is not which candidate will garner the most evangelical votes, which I believe demands an obvious answer. (After all, this isn’t 1976 and Carter vs Ford, but 2024 and Biden vs Trump!) Rather, the question at hand pertains to the Trueman-claim that evangelicals will have a truly difficult time answering with any great conviction which candidate they want (or don’t want!) as their next president.

I’ll put all the cookies on the table. It is easy to surmise that the lion’s share of Biden supporters who identify as evangelicals will vote against Trump with conviction. The reverse as it pertains to Trump supporters would seem just as obvious. Yet even if one feels the need to pull the lever while pinching her nose, thoughtful misgivings don’t preclude informed conviction. Accordingly, my confidence is not so much that most evangelicals will make the correct choice (though I believe they will), but that they will be fully persuaded over who they believe to be the correct choice. Again, when have we been offered two more polarizing candidates with glaringly antithetical agendas? And why should we have so little confidence in the brethren to develop individual convictions by November?

Notwithstanding all of that, I do appreciate Dr. Trueman’s apt reminder not to put our trust in princes. Timely advice, indeed. On that, may we all find agreement!

*In 2012 Trueman warned against the preparedness of some Christian organizations to pay what he deemed high fees for speakers, noting that it is “horribly sleazy” when one is influenced by a speaker’s “ability to command serious media attention or simply fill that stadium”. He went on to suggest that not to voice that a lecture fee of $10,000 is “distasteful or downright inappropriate” is to head into “televangelist and prosperity huckster” territory. (I tremble.)

Is it immoral to choose a speaker based upon a degree of popularity even when accompanied by a motive to fill even a large auditorium to get the word out? Indeed, I don’t question that speakers are sometimes sought out by Christian organizations for less than pure motives. That’s possible. However, I am not prepared to paint with such a broad brush as to say that to pay a speaker half the proceeds for addressing an audience of 1250 people at 16 dollars per head is distasteful, let alone horribly sleazy. The proceeds have to go somewhere. 

Imagine, for instance, a professor writing a book on the Trinity that required a lifetime of study and reflection, including a grueling year or two to organize it into manuscript form. Not much money can be made selling useful Christian books, even award winning ones. Accordingly, I would have no problem with a Christian author recouping some of his effort in the form of a 10K financial fee through the medium of a single conference engagement. Reasons that might better satisfy pietistic sorts could be to give the money to the poor, to missionaries, or to poor missionaries. There are many more good reasons as well, like getting partially out of debt, paying off medical bills or even taking one’s wife on a once in a lifetime vacation - and for her an extravagant one at that! What of it? Let’s stick to the moral law, shall we? We are Reformed after all. 

Back in 2012, I was asked: “What is the justification for taking $10,000 for a 90 minute lecture? Would Jesus ever do this?"

There are many things men ought to do that Jesus wouldn’t do. Jesus wouldn’t marry. Jesus wouldn’t hold public office or be paid for it. Jesus wouldn’t work for a waste disposal company or be paid for it. Accordingly, to base theology in general and justification for creaturely acts in particular on a “WWJD” theology is poor procedure.