"We're Not Electing a Pastor-in-Chief" But We Sure Were Trying in the 1990's

Tolerance of serious wrong by leaders sears the conscience of the culture, spawns unrestrained immorality and lawlessness in the society, and surely results in God's judgment."  Resolution on Moral Character in Public Officials, Southern Baptist Convention, 1998 Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah

Full Resolution on Moral Character in Public Office

"I'm not voting for a pastor-in-chief, I'm voting for a commander in chief." 

That was a frequent response from Evangelical Christians attempting to justify casting a ballot for Trump, going back to 2016.  Few public characters in American life are as openly on the record touting immorality as a claim to fame as Donald J. Trump.  From bragging about literally hundreds of extra-marital affairs and sexual liaisons and relationships to owning businesses that cater to what most Christians consider vices, like strip clubs, cocktail lounges and gaming casinos, to the open dishonesty he publicly justifies as his style of "politics," Trump is the antithesis of the Christian life taught by virtually all branches of American Christianity as a Biblical lifestyle, based on a Biblical worldview. 

My response to that is to say, "Hypocrisy knows no bounds."  I'm not passing judgment here.  I'm drawing a conclusion based on Trump's own words and actions.  He still revels in the fame that comes from his immorality, still indulges in and defends habitual and pathological lying, and has verbally declared his lack of repentance.  

Evangelical Christians in general, and Southern Baptists in particular, who passed the resolution I referenced at the beginning of the post, may not have been voting for a "pastor-in-chief" in 1992 or 1996, when Bill Clinton was on the ballot, but they sure sounded and acted like they were.  Clinton's alleged infidelity, which was an issue long before Monica Lewinsky came along, was a major campaign issue among the religious right during both elections in which he was a candidate.  Having extra-marital affairs was considered a moral flaw indicating a character lapse that disqualified a presidential candidate, according to the Evangelicals who touted that line.  

But President Clinton was a Democrat.  So his immorality was a disqualifying factor, according to the Evangelical right wing.  

None of Clinton's opponents were particularly "Evangelical" nor were they members of churches that were particularly compatible with Evangelicalism.  George H. W. Bush was a liberal Episcopalian, whose spiritual advisor was an outspoken proponent of LGBTQ rights and an advocate for the Episcopal Church's ordination of gay and lesbian clergy.  Didn't matter.  Bush had to be dragged to the altar of pro-life worship in order to get on the ticket with Reagan to be Vice-President, something he did reluctantly and which he regretted later on.  It never manifested itself in his court appointments while in office.  

Bob Dole was a 33rd degree member of the Scottish Rite, not exactly a compatible organization with conservative Evangelicalism.  He was a member and sort of regular attender of a United Methodist Church that was an advocate within the denomination for ordination of gay and lesbian clergy in the Methodist church.  When he was running for president, and the issue of his faith came up, which it did frequently because conservatives wanted to use it as a campaign issue, he said that he deferred most of his family faith matters to his wife, Elizabeth, who was a Southern Baptist. 

There was a lot said about moral character being a requirement to earn the votes of a Christian in a presidential or congressional election when Clinton was in office.  It was a political way to bash him, and it worked its way into a lot more places once the word got out of his pseudo-affair with Monica Lewinsky.  Dr. Adrian Rogers, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and then-pastor of the mega Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, Tennessee, preached a sermon entitled, "Does Character Count?"  It didn't mention Clinton by name, but it was clearly a reference to his character.  

I wonder how popular he would be today if he'd preached exactly that same sermon in the same way and people inferred that it applied to Trump?  I also wonder if Dr. Rogers were alive today, if he would stand by that sermon when Trump came along?  I don't think he was one to back down from principle, but he'd be alone since many of those who were in the "Amen Corner" when he preached that message supported Trump and all of his associated and unrepentant immorality without batting an eye.  Given the way Southern Baptists are handling matters in their convention these days, Rogers would be lied about, his theology attacked and there would be all kinds of nit-picking and personal attacks on him.  

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it--the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.  For there is no distinction:  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and we are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.  Romans 3:21-24, ESV

So you're right.  You're not voting for a pastor-in-chief.  But if you think character, integrity, honesty, and personal relationships aren't as important in a candidate for President as the issues to which he or she gives lip service, you're going to wind up disappointed.  If you're not going to hold your government leadership to the same standards of morality, integrity and character that you expect from your pastor, you're setting aside your Christian conscience and expecting someone to accomplish something for you that they don't really believe in themselves. 

I'm not talking about theological or doctrinal standards.  Since the founding of the country, we've had Presidents who come from a wide variety of theological and doctrinal perspectives.  Though Americans did indeed hold a bias against Catholics, not electing one until 1960, most came from Protestant churches considered in the "mainstream" of Christian thought, but which were, even in the late 1700's and early 1800's, quite diverse, everything from Congregationalists and Unitarians to Presbyterians and even a few Baptists.  About half were known to be very devout and faithful, others were Christians by association, family background or name only.  History has revealed that some were scandalously immoral, though much of that was not known to the public until long after they left office or died. 

Personally, I thought Clinton's immoral behavior with women was a character flaw that subtracted from the leadership ability  that he needed to be President of the United States.  Can you trust a man whose wife can't trust him?  The collective responsibility for the people of the United States that rests with the President is far greater than responsibility for a marriage, so if you can't really manage the latter, how is that going to translate over to running the country?  And while moral decisions are your personal responsibilty, how you handle a marriage is a demonstration of your commitment.  Neither Clinton, nor Trump, could earn my trust as a voter and it wasn't because I was judging their character, it was because they both showed a lack of trust when it came to keeping promises.  

But as a citizen of the United States, I do have the right, and the responsibility, to discern what I think qualifies a person, male or female, for their responsibility as President.  Clinton lacked the moral qualifications for being President, and if he did, by the same standard, so did Donald Trump.  If you're hiding behind the phrase "I'm not electing a pastor-in-chief I'm electing a commander-in-chief " as a Christian to justify your vote for Trump, then you're a hypocrite if you criticized Clinton for his moral failures.  

If you think that it's OK to support someone like Trump because he's made some kind of a deal with some Christian leaders to work towards a few of their political ends in exchange for their helping him get the votes of their followers, then you don't understand what having  a  Christian "worldview" means or how its ends are achieved.  You're playing by the world's rules, not God's.  Take a look at the resolution that Southern Baptists passed in 1998.  Not only does that not say "I'm not voting for a pastor-in-chief," but it is right on target with the ideological and political shambles and confusion left behind by four years of Donald Trump's lies.  If the crowning achievement of your administration was an insurrectionist rebellion against the government and an attack on the Capitol spawned by the incessant lies you told, then regardless of your alleged social positions, you're not qualified to be President of the United States.