Saturday, July 29, 2017


Increasingly, evangelicals are being forced to defend themselves because they had overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Sometimes, we are called "hypocrites." The evangelical church also receives unceasing bashing from the mainstream media (MSM). However, rather than directly bashing the church, they gladly publish those who do.

The latest diatribe comes from the co-director of the Center for Africana Studies at Oklahoma State University and the diversity coordinator for its philosophy department. He also holds credentials with the Southern Baptist Church (NYT, 7/17,2017):

  • Yet it saddens and scares me to think that the church, especially given its role in the black community as a place for moral correction and existential validation, may no longer be able to serve that purpose. Despite our need for such a place, acquiescence in the face of racism and homophobia won’t heal them; it will only allow the wounds to fester.

  • I want to be a member of a body of believers that is structured around my Christian beliefs of equity, not one that sees those issues as peripheral. The equality of all people should be a fundamental principle that is a starting point of the convention’s existence, not a side issue to be debated.

The writer is convinced that because his church had overwhelmingly voted for Trump they are unconcerned about black lives. However, his charges of racism can only be supported by the racist stance of the SBC during the segregation days, something which they have confessed and repented. However, this doesn't matter to the NYT or the rest of the MSM. When it comes to the church, once guilty, always guilty. The writer therefore concluded:

  • I love the church, but I love black people more. Black lives matter to me. I am not confident that they matter to the [SBC].  

The writer's lack of confidence of the SBC without any tangible evidence is enough to indict the Church. 

How ironic! The institution committed to love, forgiveness, and reconciliation has become the brunt of hatred. In face of such bias, the Church defensively labors to avoid any appearance of favoritism, even Christian favoritism.

In view of the charges, it is imperative to answer the unreasonable indictment against her - why she had voted for Trump. Here are some thoughts on the subject:

Although there is much that we find morally objectionable about President Trump, there is even more about Hillary that is morally objectionable, namely her alleged involvement in a host of scandals. On top of this, she has made her intolerance of the biblical faith painfully clear. She has termed us and our beliefs as "deplorables" and has insisted that we must change. 

Meanwhile, the President has gone on record to challenge the curtailment of our 1st Amendment rights - the freedoms of speech and of religion. In contrast, Hillary seems to have approved of the many instances where Christians have been deprived of both employment and their businesses. 

The only way we can feel protected and live in harmony with one another is if our most basic rights are protected. In this regard, the President has promised to appoint judges who have a high regard for the Constitution and its protections, while Clinton has insisted on ideological tests for candidates for court appointment that coincide with her own ideology.

Clinton seemed to have little regard for any ideology which disagreed with her own. In contrast, the President promised to challenge the hyper-sexualized agenda of the former administration including transgenderism, abortion, and other innovations that have threatened the well-being of children and the family.

The President's policies have also promised to empower and to restore individual initiative in favor of top-down dis empowering control.

Lastly, the President has shown what seems to be a concern for the welfare of the country, justice, and the protection of the innocent. Meanwhile, Clinton has given all indications of supporting the very religion dedicated to destroying non-Muslims and subjecting the entire world to the oppressive domination of Islam. Many such nations have contributed many millions to the Clinton Foundation, obviously expecting favors. As such, she has been bought by those funding a worldwide genocide against non-Muslims, especially Christians.

In light of the above, it is only natural that we should question the sincerity of those Christians who had voted for Clinton. Perhaps instead we all need to put these divisive differences behind us in favor of our many common interests.

No comments:

Post a Comment