SHALL WE ENDORSE EVIL THAT GOOD MAY RESULT?

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...1/shall-we-endorse-evil-that-good-may-result/

“And why not do evil that good may come?”
— Romans 3:8a

Or, to put it another way, “Do the ends justify the means?”

Or, to put it in more biblical terms, “Should we compromise what we know is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent, and worthy of praise if we think the result may be something good?”

Or, to be more specific, “Should we support a morally repugnant and unqualified person if we suspect some good may result from it?”

What is a Christian to do if casting a particular vote requires not just holding one’s nose but also closing one’s ears and covering one’s eyes and hurting one’s sisters and further fracturing relationships between races and violating other principles of Scripture related to keeping counsel of fools or hating our enemies? There are Supreme Court justices at stake, after all.

Perhaps there are better things than winning. Like an appeal to a good conscience before God (1 Pet. 3:21).

God used King David, an adulterer. (And, if we’re factoring in one’s views of abortion, also a murderer, by the way.) This is undoubtedly true. But the reality that God can use anybody and anything is not itself a commendation of endorsing anybody and anything. Biblically speaking, the truth is that the ends do not justify the means.

Let’s think about how the whole king of Israel thing happened. The people of God demanded a king (1 Samuel 8). A political messiah. Someone to solve their problems and mete out justice. Why did they do this? Fear, mainly. Envy of other nations, also. God gave them what they wanted. He can use anybody. But he makes it clear that this desire is not godly. It’s not always a good thing when God “gives us what we want.” It’s not always a good thing to get what we want, even if our motives are sincere. No, it’s never a good thing to compromise godliness and cast our lots with evil even if we suspect something good may result. Sometimes the worst thing that can happen to us is for God to give us what we want. “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them” (1 Samuel 8:7).

Evangelicals—ok, let’s be more specific: “old guard,” mostly white evangelicals—stand at a great precipice. They see the kingdoms of the world and they are afraid. They fear losing power. They fear losing control. They fear for their children’s safety and the future of their nation. They mostly desire something good. And here stands someone evil promising it to them. Just bow down a little bit. It’s not the end of the world. Everybody makes compromises. God can use anything.

God is sovereign over all. He appoints kings and princes. He rules over the rise of nations. And also the falls. God is even sovereign over the Devil! He is sovereign over the installation of wicked rulers. But he usually allows this to bring judgment, not peace.

Or maybe the position is not so grand. Maybe it’s humble, and we are just tired and hungry. We are starving for something good. In our anxious and famished state, the soup seems more immediately gratifying than the birthright.

In Romans 3:8, Paul addresses an accusation against him: “And why not do evil that good may come?” He calls this slander. And he says it leads to condemnation. Why? Not simply because it offends him. But because it offends the gospel and its divine Author.

If we truly trusted the sovereign Lord of all who can use anything, we would abstain from the endorsement of the morally disqualified—no matter their political party and no matter their promises—because God can use a non-vote as easily as a held-nose vote. And which, in fact, would display greater faith? I mean, if we’re using the Bible as our guide, does it appear to be a pattern that the Lord prefers to use the strong and the mighty and the big to accomplish his plans? Or does it seem like he seems to specialize in the people who can’t win?

Given the choice between a vote for a qualified underdog or a conscientious objection and a vote for the kind of leader the Bible calls wicked, which shows a greater faith? Which act of faith would display the clean hands without which no one can see the Lord?

The ends do not justify the means. And in our current quagmire, the ends are not even assured. They are barely even promised. They are more accurately held out as blackmail, as leverage.

Perhaps siding with an evil and hoping for the good is not our only option. Perhaps there is a third way. Maybe it’s siding with the good and trusting God’s best.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the Lord, and turn away from evil.
It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.

— Proverbs 3:5-8

I have mixed feelings about this piece. My initial question while reading it was, how is 'morally disqualified' defined? There are no morally perfect candidates so how many boxes must be checked for them to be disqualified? Then, I struggle with how closely tied voting is to a moral/immoral action. A vote doesn't have to be for someone's behavior. It doesn't have to be for someone's character. It doesn't even have to be for all of the policies that someone advocates during their campaign. So again, where is that line?

On the other side, I liked the question about what action requires more faith. I think that a lot of Christians in America seek to keep the power they think they've had in the past and fear what it will mean for them if they lose it. I think many Christians put more hope in politics, the GOP, America, than in God. They battle flesh and blood (the Democrats).

I also thought there is some power in this.
The ends do not justify the means. And in our current quagmire, the ends are not even assured. They are barely even promised. They are more accurately held out as blackmail, as leverage.

How many people will make a deal with the devil over some Supreme Court justices? :idunno:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.or...1/shall-we-endorse-evil-that-good-may-result/

I have mixed feelings about this piece. My initial question while reading it was, how is 'morally disqualified' defined? There are no morally perfect candidates so how many boxes must be checked for them to be disqualified?

There are political candidates who, while they might have some personal flaws, don't stand for immoral behavior and legislation. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton defend immoral behavior and will legislate accordingly.

Then, I struggle with how closely tied voting is to a moral/immoral action. A vote doesn't have to be for someone's behavior. It doesn't have to be for someone's character. It doesn't even have to be for all of the policies that someone advocates during their campaign. So again, where is that line?

Would you trust a candidate to legislate wisely if he or she has no self control over his or her own behavior?

On the other side, I liked the question about what action requires more faith. I think that a lot of Christians in America seek to keep the power they think they've had in the past and fear what it will mean for them if they lose it. I think many Christians put more hope in politics, the GOP, America, than in God. They battle flesh and blood (the Democrats).

A good portion of Trump supporters weren't Republicans, never have been and never will be again. They crossed Party lines to help elect a "populist" (a nice word for a liberal in disguise), someone who they might not agree with on all issues, but the core ones they do.

I also thought there is some power in this.

How many people will make a deal with the devil over some Supreme Court justices? :idunno:

That's what amazes me about well known Christian pastors and Evangelical leaders backing Donald Trump. Do they really think that a sexual deviant psychopath can be trusted once in power to live up to his promises? Look who gave us the SCOTUS Judges responsible for Roe v Wade.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
On the other side, I liked the question about what action requires more faith. I think that a lot of Christians in America seek to keep the power they think they've had in the past and fear what it will mean for them if they lose it. I think many Christians put more hope in politics, the GOP, America, than in God. They battle flesh and blood (the Democrats).

Did it make you think of the book Bad Religion?
 

Danoh

New member
The choice for the so called Christian out there...is similar to being asked to choose between the supposed lesser of two evils - that of Mormon beliefs and practices...or that of the Jehova's Witnesses.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Donald Trump has no interest in silencing the gospel. Obama and Hillary do.

Obama didn't 'silence the gospel' in all the eight years he was in office. All that scaremongering that went on, and the alt right has nothing to show for all their dire predictions.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
The choice for the so called Christian out there...is similar to being asked to choose between the supposed lesser of two evils - that of Mormon beliefs and practices...or that of the Jehova's Witnesses.

A conservative syndicated columnist 4 years ago wrote that Mitt Romney "wasn't Mormon enough". Work on your analogies, while the JW's and Mormons might have doctrinal differences with your average TOL'er, they're by no means immoral in their beliefs (like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are).
 

Danoh

New member
A conservative syndicated columnist 4 years ago wrote that Mitt Romney "wasn't Mormon enough". Work on your analogies, while the JW's and Mormons might have doctrinal differences with your average TOL'er, they're by no means immoral in their beliefs (like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are).

Mormons assert that Christ and Lucifer are brothers.

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

The analogy was more than apt.
 

ClimateSanity

New member
Obama didn't 'silence the gospel' in all the eight years he was in office. All that scaremongering that went on, and the alt right has nothing to show for all their dire predictions.

No preachers in jail for speaking out about homosexuality? No people going bankrupt because they refused a gay decoration on a wedding cake? Obama wasn't appointing people who were of that mindset?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Mormons assert that Christ and Lucifer are brothers.

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ.

Which is the lesser of two evils?

The analogy was more than apt.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are for the murder of unborn babies (don't believe the "Republican for a day" when he panders to Christians and says that he's pro life).

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are pro LGBTQ, a terribly disease ridden behavior along with a child molesting/indoctrinating agenda.

When it comes to the protection of the unborn and family values, I'll go with the Mormons and JW's over Clinton and Trump any day.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Obama didn't 'silence the gospel' in all the eight years he was in office. All that scaremongering that went on, and the alt right has nothing to show for all their dire predictions.

No preachers in jail for speaking out about homosexuality? No people going bankrupt because they refused a gay decoration on a wedding cake? Obama wasn't appointing people who were of that mindset?

Do you really think that Donald Trump will back religious liberty legislation CS? Heck, he picked as a VP running mate a guy who backed down on religious liberty legislation as Governor of Indiana due to a threatened LGBTQ boycott of his state.

Trump isn't any better. Where was he when Kentucky Court Clerk Kim Davis was being persecuted? (he was telling the good people of North Carolina that not allowing transvestites to use the little girls room was a "bad business decision").
 

ClimateSanity

New member
Do you really think that Donald Trump will back religious liberty legislation CS? Heck, he picked as a VP running mate a guy who backed down on religious liberty legislation as Governor of Indiana due to a threatened LGBTQ boycott of his state.

Trump isn't any better. Where was he when Kentucky Court Clerk Kim Davis was being persecuted? (he was telling the good people of North Carolina that not allowing transvestites to use the little girls room was a "bad business decision").

He certainly won't be pushing any anti liberty legislation. I can guarantee it. At least pence tried but LGBQT is a hideously powerful monster.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
He certainly won't be pushing any anti liberty legislation.

Can you really trust a sociopath like Donald Trump to do anything moral? He's been all over the board on numerous issues, and let's not forget his ultra liberal past.

I can guarantee it. At least pence tried but LGBQT is a hideously powerful monster.

There is no such thing as "trying" in this case. Mike Pence signed legislation protecting religious (i.e. Christian) liberty and backed down when the going got tough. He should take notes from NC Governor Pat McCrory who is still standing strong on the "bathroom bill" even though all of the LGBTQ allies have boycotted his state.
 

Grosnick Marowbe

New member
Hall of Fame
Can you really trust a sociopath like Donald Trump to do anything moral? He's been all over the board on numerous issues, and let's not forget his ultra liberal past.



There is no such thing as "trying" in this case. Mike Pence signed legislation protecting religious (i.e. Christian) liberty and backed down when the going got tough. He should take notes from NC Governor Pat McCrory who is still standing strong on the "bathroom bill" even though all of the LGBTQ allies have boycotted his state.

:chuckle:
 
Top