Note: I’ve added a 7^th post—one that released just after my original post. 

Our Historical Context 

As I sit at my computer, we are one week away from Election Day in the US, even as millions of votes have already been cast with early voting. In just the past week, I’ve seen 7 prominent Christian leaders voice their views on the US Presidential Election. I’ve decided to collate these articles, along with links and brief summaries of their own words, and without much commentary by me. I provide these for my blog readers so you can be informed and then can make your own prayerful, educated decision about how to vote.

These 7 views divide into 3 views that conclude, based especially on character issues, that they could not vote for Donald Trump. And then 3 views, while agreeing that President Trump’s character and conduct issues are of grave concern, conclude that they would, nonetheless, vote for him based upon policy issues. And a 7^th—recently added view—that highlights voting for a 3^rd Party candidate. You’ll also note that all 7 articles express concerns for the policy issues of Joe Biden. None of these 7 posts are “pro-Biden.”

I place John Piper’s view first, in part because it was the earliest of these 7 posts, and in part because most, if not all, of the rest of the articles either reference or seem to be engaging with or influenced by Piper’s article. After that, I seek to “rotate” posts between “unable to vote for Trump” and “reluctantly able to vote for Trump.”

1. John Piper 

At Desiring God, John Piper penned and posted: Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin: Pondering the Implications of the 2020 Election. The following seems a fair summary of Piper’s overall perspective:

“Actually, this is a long-overdue article attempting to explain why I remain baffled that so many Christians consider the sins of unrepentant sexual immorality (porneia), unrepentant boastfulness (alazoneia), unrepentant vulgarity (aischrologia), unrepentant factiousness (dichostasiai), and the like, to be only toxic for our nation, while policies that endorse baby-killing, sex-switching, freedom-limiting, and socialistic overreach are viewed as deadly. The reason I put those Greek words in parentheses is to give a graphic reminder that these are sins mentioned in the New Testament. To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people. They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction (2 Thessalonains 1:9). They destroy persons (Acts 12:20-23). And through persons, they destroy nations (Jeremiah 48:29-31, 42).”

2. Al Mohler 

At his website, Dr. Al Mohler pens and posts: Christians, Conscience, and the Looming 2020 Election. This section perhaps best captures Dr. Mohler’s long and nuanced perspective:

“I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in 2016. Repulsed by his character and unable to see him as a conservative, I voted for neither major party candidate. I made a symbolic vote. I had to hope that Hillary Clinton would not be elected president, but it seemed almost determined. As we know now, it was not. Having argued loudly for the resignation of President Bill Clinton on national television many times over in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky affair, I felt that I could not vote for Donald Trump without hypocrisy. I even went so far as to say that if I voted for Donald Trump I would have to apologize to Bill Clinton. Well, I am voting for Donald Trump in 2020 and I make no apology to Bill Clinton. I do apologize, but my apology is for making a dumb statement that did not stand the test of time. I am not about to apologize to Bill Clinton, who stands guilty of having desecrated the presidency by his gross sexual immorality while in office. I still believe in the necessity of character for public office, but I have had to think more deeply about how character is evaluated in an historic context….”

“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.”

Dr. Mohler references his change of perspective from 2016. Here is one article that addresses Dr. Mohler’s position in 2016: Evangelical Support for Trump Destroys Moral Credibility Mohler Says on CNN Tonight.

And, for some additional historical context, here’s a link to the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials.

3. David French 

David French, at his French Press site, applauds Piper’s article in this post: A Christian Leader Reminds Believers of the Power of Character: John Piper Revives Christian Convictions of the Recent Past. French’s words, near the conclusion of his article, perhaps fairly summarize his thoughts on Piper’s article and on the 2020 Presidential Election:

“But wait, you might object. Those sins are serious, no question, but they are nothing compared to the sins that Trump fights—including mainly the sin of abortion. But where do those sins come from? As Piper says, they come from ‘the very character that so many Christian leaders are treating as comparatively innocuous, because they think Roe and SCOTUS and Planned Parenthood are more pivotal, more decisive, battlegrounds.’ Trump cannot end abortion. Even if SCOTUS overturns Roe, it will not overturn abortion. That will require a culture that emphasizes love, selfless sacrifice, and mutual support. If a ‘pro-life’ president uses his immense power to flaunt ‘boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness’ even as he purports to modestly change policy, he is ultimately destructive to the culture Christians seek to create. Piper puts it more bluntly: ‘It is naive to think that a man can be effectively pro-life and manifest consistently the character traits that lead to death—temporal and eternal.’”

4. Sam Storms 

On his Enjoying God site, Sam Storms responds to John Piper’s article: A Brief Reflection on John Piper’s Recent Article Concerning the Presidential Election. This concluding summary perhaps best captures Pastor Storms perspective:

“I’m not equipped or wise enough to know which is worse for a nation: an overtly prideful, lustful, vulgar, profane Narcissist, or a quiet and gentlemanly advocate of abortion, homosexuality, who would suppress religious liberties and promote socialist economic policies. Both are evil. And does it not say something about the wretched condition of our country that such men are the best that the United States of America can put forth as candidates for President? Can we not do better than this? So, in conclusion, I agree with John that character counts, indeed, counts massively. I agree that the unbiblical and immoral qualities that we see in one person can be destructive, just as can the policies of a person who by all outward appearances seems to be winsome and kind. It is a terrible indictment of our failed political system and the misguided beliefs of so many people that this has left us with what I believe is an untenable choice to make on November 3. On the eve of the election in 2016 I stood before the congregation at Bridgeway and lamented the fact that we were faced with a decision between two equally unqualified, morally degenerate candidates. There is a very real sense in which the same scenario now plays out in 2020. May God give us wisdom to know what to do, and how to vote.”

5. Matt Kaufman 

Matt Kaufman is a writer based in Illinois. He is a former associate editor and contributing editor for Focus on the Family’s Citizen magazine. At The Bulwark website, Kaufman posted: Why Christians Should Dump Trump. In this long article, perhaps this section fairly summarizes Kaufman’s conclusion:

“It’s not enough for us to behave well individually if we collectively support someone who behaves like Trump. How many people will believe we’re not motivated by hate and fear if we tie ourselves to someone who traffics in both—someone who invites the worst elements of society to come out and play? How many will believe we are motivated by conscience if we rally behind someone who’s devoid of one? What kind of Christian witness is that to the world? In short, how much do our political allegiances damage the faith that we’re supposed to be spreading? In the end, this might be the most compelling reason for Christians to reject Trump. There’s no shortage of others. Yes, he’s bad for our society in so many ways. Yes, he’s bad for the very causes some of us see as reasons to support him. Above all, though, he’s bad for the cause of Christ—in ways more destructive than an army of avowed enemies could ever be.”

6. Wayne Grudem 

At the Christian Post, guest contributor Wayne Grudem writes: A Respectful Response to My Friend John Piper About Voting for Trump. This is a long and detailed response, engaging Piper’s perspective respectfully point by point. Since his post is so long, perhaps this introduction is the best way to capture what Grudem begins to develop. After expression great respect for his friend (John Piper) of forty years, Grudem then writes:

“But he (Piper) and I have reached different conclusions about this year’s presidential election. His October 22 article, Policies, Persons, and Paths to Ruin, explained why he thought it would be wrong for him to support either candidate in this election. (He does not mention either candidate by name, but the article is about this election and he compares one candidate who supports policies that endorse ‘baby-killing,’ ‘sex-switching,’ and ‘socialistic overreach’ (evidently Joe Biden) to the other candidate who is guilty of sins of ‘unrepentant sexual immorality’ and ‘unrepentant boastfulness’ (evidently Donald Trump). I am writing to explain why I have reached a different decision, and why I voted a few days ago for Donald Trump.”

7. Karen Swallow Prior (Added After My Initial Post) 

This additional post “dropped” the day after my initial post. I’ve added it as a 7^th current Christian post, this one by Karen Swallow Prior at Christianity Today: Voting for Neither: On Voting Third-Party in the Upcoming Election. This section of Prior’s post summarizes her perspective.

“If I vote for Biden, I will be complicit in abortions on a mass scale. If I vote for Trump, I will be complicit in cementing a worldview in which the ends justify the means, power replaces truth, and thus the very truths by which we define and understand ourselves as human is at stake. Trump’s sins aren’t only the personal kind. His most grievous sins are against the polis, that is the common good of our life together. Every time I state my refusal to vote for either major party candidate this presidential election, I get pushback from both sides—each claiming that my refusal to vote for one candidate is a vote for the other. I understand how the math works. But voting is a moral and civic act, not an algebraic one. Of course, no candidate is perfect. Yet when the two major parties nominate candidates for the president of our nation that fall below the basic threshold for any leadership position, voting for a third-party candidate puts it on record that neither party can take members of certain groups for granted.”

(Maybe) Join the Conversation 

If you’re a regular reader of my Truth and Love blog, then you know that I conclude almost every post with a Jon the Conversation section. You’ll note that this time, for the first time ever, I’ve added the word “Maybe.” I’m hesitant, honestly, to invite any comments—either here, or on Twitter, or on Facebook—to this post. I’ve read so many Christians responding to other Christians about the 2020 election in ways that can only be described as hateful, condemning, misrepresenting, and disrespectful. I’ve also read so many Christian responses to other Christians that seem to totally ignore what the first person wrote, and then respond with “sound bites” that could come from Fox News or CNN. If you’d like to share your thoughts on this blog at my site, on my Twitter account, or on any of my Facebook pages or groups, please do so:

1. After having carefully read at least two of the linked posts—one that agrees with your side and one that agrees with “the other side.”

2. In a way that keeps your Christian testimony.

3. In a way that shows Christian respect for your brothers and sisters in Christ.

4. In a way that thinks logically and theologically and then carefully shares your view—rather than sharing secular news “sound bites.”

5. In a way modeled by all 7 posts linked above. Every one of them expressed respect for opposing views.

If you can do all of that, then please feel free to Join the Conversation.