Grudem wrote this article.
http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564
Some quick thoughts and rebuttals of mine below:
\\As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their analysis is incorrect. Now that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.\\
Falsely conflating "GOP nomination" with "morally good choice". This only holds if you believe that the GOP is the "morally good" party. I think it has been clear for many years that this is not the case.
\\A good candidate with flaws
I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.
I did not support Trump in the primary season. I even spoke against him at a pastors’ conference in February. But now I plan to vote for him. I do not think it is right to call him an “evil candidate.” I think rather he is a good candidate with flaws.
He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.\\
I feel like Grudem is deliberately avoiding the scriptures speaking against this.
Egotistical - Jeremiah 17:5
Bombastic - Ephesians 5:1-6
Brash - Jeremiah 9:23-24
Adultery - Matthew 19:4-6, Exodus 20:17, Matthew 15:19, Hebrews 13:4, Proverbs 6:28-29, Proverbs 6:32-33.
Why would anybody want a person who has proudly exhibited the above sins to be leader of a country? If he cannot stay faithful to his wife, what makes us think he will stay faithful to God as a national leader?
\\On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made. I think he is deeply patriotic and sincerely wants the best for the country. He has been an unusually successful problem solver in business. He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports are those that will do the most good for the nation.\\
Aha! The pragmatic argument! The policies that will do the most good for nation are the sort of policies that will put the U.S. into willing submission unto Christ and his laws. Grudem's "a good candidate with flaws" argument falls short because his basis for Trump's "good candidate" status is not based upon the Word of God, but based on his own political presuppositions.
\\Seek the good of the nation
Should Christians even try to influence elections at all? Yes, definitely. The apostle Peter says Christians are “exiles” on this earth (1 Peter 1:1). Therefore I take seriously the prophet Jeremiah’s exhortation to the Jewish people living in exile in Babylon:
“Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7).
By way of modern application, I think Christians today have a similar obligation to vote in such a way that will “seek the welfare” of the United States. Therefore the one overriding question to ask is this: Which vote is most likely to bring the best results for the nation?\\
Grudem takes this verse out of context. This section of scripture has to deal with God's people continuing to obey the dominion mandate: "Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce" (vv. 5). "Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there and do not decrease" (vv.6). This is the same Genesis 1:28 command. God is reminding his people that they have been given dominion over the earth. The welfare of Jeremiah 29:7 is the RESULT of that dominion being worked out in verses 5 and 6. They are not separate. Grudem should know better than to produce such sour eisegesis. The entire context of this "welfare-seeking" has to be seen in the Gospel; being fruitful and multiply includes marriage, family, and children. It also applies to the church. To seek the welfare of the city (or nation) as a Christian, the best thing you can do is to preach the gospel and to seek God's name glorified. Transformation of society starts with transformation of the church. The welfare of a nation hinges on the welfare of the church.
\\If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?\\
Fallacious reasoning. The reason "liberals like Hillary Clinton win" has nothing to do with those not voting for her, but with those voting FOR HER. To place the blame on third-party voters is to redirect the blame off one group of people. This is another "wasted" vote fallacy. It also presupposes that voting for a write-in candidate is an act that helps Hillary win. Grudem assumes this but cannot prove it. There is good evidence that disaffected voters from both camps are looking at third parties. Grudem is asking people to vote against their consciences by trapping them into a defeatist mindset. No, the only people helping Hillary win are the people VOTING for Hillary. Canvas them if you must, but don't put the blame on third-party voters.
\\Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).\\
If Trump is not interested in outlawing abortion, he is pro-abortion. That is the issue. If Trump is not interested in defending marriage from biblical bounds, he will get no further on the marriage debate because he has no basis. Everybody says he has changed his mind. I don't think he has. There is no true exhibition of any mind-changing taking place. Trump is likely either lying or confused. But his track record should tell us that voting for him means voting for somebody who can and will change his mind on a whim.
Trump's government will still be "big" even if he calls it "conservative". The issue is the "big", not the "liberalism", for to increase government oversight is to increase liberalism. Grudem is right to say that "defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action". but he is wrong to conclude that the means don't matter. He is still being pragmatic, not biblical. Taking James 4:17 to conflate "voting for Trump" with "the right thing to do" is wrong.
\\Some may feel it is easier just to stay away from this messy Trump-Clinton election, and perhaps not even vote. But the teachings of Scripture do not allow us to escape moral responsibility by saying that we decided to do nothing. The prophet Obadiah rebuked the people of the Edom for standing by and doing nothing to help when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem: “On the day that you stood aloof, on the day that . . . foreigners entered his gates and cast lots for Jerusalem, you were like one of them.” (Obadiah 1:11).\\
Grydem also forgets the basis for political dissent. I'm a reconstructionist, not a covenanter, but here's a good link on why political dissent is a godly option.
https://mintdill.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/why-political-dissent-among-reformed-covenanters/
Here's the meat:
“WE find the Word of God speaks Woe to them that decree unrighteous Decrees, as well as to them that obey and walk willingly after the same [Isa. 10.1; Hos. 5.11]; and therefore we think Magistrates making bad Laws, are to be witnessed against, as well as Ministers or People who obey and follow the same.”
Additional such passages would be,
Is. 8:12, “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy.”
Psalm 94:20-21 “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.”
2 Chronicles 19.2, “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?”
Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?”
Based on the fruit that Trump has exhibited, do we believe he is commended by these verses? Or is he condemned by these verses?
\\I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how different a Trump presidency would be. In what follows, I will compare the results we could expect from a Clinton presidency with what we could expect from a Trump presidency.\\
Grudem appeals to an assumed ignorance of those who are #NeverTrump. Very patronizing. I will not work through Grudem's comparison of a possible Clinton presidency vs the possible Trump presidency. But I will say that the appeal to consequences does not make his proposition any better. It's fallacious to say "here are the bad alternatives; therefore, my view is correct". The appeal to consequences is a fallacy and distracts from his ultimate thesis. It does not PROVE that voting for Trump is the morally-right choice.
\\Does character matter?
“But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.
In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.\\
It is not reductionism to stand on the word of God and dissent from the political process or to vote your conscience. When "reductionism" is used against biblical principles, you need to re-think your eisegesis.
\\To my friends who tell me they won’t vote for Trump because there is a chance he won’t govern at all like he promises, I reply that all of American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that is unlikely to happen.
Consider instead the most likely results. The most likely result of voting for Trump is that he will govern the way he promises to do, bringing much good to the nation.\\
Holy circular reasoning, Batman!
\\But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.\\
Grudem really thinks that Trump will fix:
abortion,
religious freedom for businesses,
the economy (what with his dismal business record),
social welfare (which the government was never designed to promote! This is a church function!!!),
good education (unsubstantiated; it does not require a degree to have good education),
good healthcare (another church function, which requires more than just "freeing the market" but also requires gospel initiative, which Grudem has shown little in his arguments),
an unchecked ISIS (unsubstantiated; also assumes that the U.S. is the world's watchdog and defender, because we have seen just how much good futzing around in the middle east has been for everybody, especially the orthodox community!!),
millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies (which has not changed since the 1940s; and Hillary herself has stated multiple times that Israel is an ally, so this point is even less substantial)
He is beyond mistaken and decieved. And he will blame you for not voting for his candidate. Isn't that funny? And he will bear the weight of his decision should Trump win and fail to do the above.
Wayne Grudem is wrong about voting for Trump. He is wrong about those who decide not to vote for Trump.
That is all.
