Situational Ethics!?!

[Josh]

So are we all agreeing that adultery is serious sin and that we should treat it that way, regardless of who is doing it? Are we also agreeing that we prefer moral leadership?

Can we also agree that many Christians may really believe that, without ulterior motives?

Can we also agree that Christians who treat this differently depending on political preferences are being hypocritical?

The Bible never says to “prefer moral leadership”, although it’s clear God prefers that and appoints and punishes kings based on that.

As far as complaining about Trump’s adultery goes, perhaps you should stop and consider how some people on this forum consider you an unrepentant adulterer.

Most Christians who claim to want “moral leadership” use it as an excuse to support one political tribe or the other.

[Bootstrap]

There's a simple litmus test.

When discussing moral issues, do we talk about them in politically neutral ways, or do we have to apply the political filter first? Do we talk about whether moral leadership is important in a president, or do we rehash a long list of outrages and make sure that everyone knows that the other political tribe is the guilty one?

The Bible doesn't frame moral questions this way. This is political partisanship, not biblical thinking. Some people may not be aware of how much they do this - we should all remember that when you point at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at you. Feel free to point this out in any post where I do the same.

Both the left and the right do a lot of political tribalism. But when Christians do this, I think it makes our witness on moral issues suspect. We should be able to discuss moral issues directly as such.

[Bootstrap]

Most Christians who claim to want “moral leadership” use it as an excuse to support one political tribe or the other.

That may be true - I don't know whether this is "most" Christians or only some. Maybe that's what Franklin Graham was doing under Clinton, and he changed his views when the tribe in power changed. I think that's the point of this thread.

But don't you agree that's wrong?

And wouldn't you also agree that whataboutism and deflection can also be an excuse to support one political tribe or the other? Why not stay on topic?

My take on this is that we really should expect a certain level of basic morality in our leaders, and that having an affair with a porn star, paying her hush money, lying about it, threatening her, and trying to cover it up in ways that may be illegal is a real problem.

What is your take on this? How should Christians talk about this kind of thing when our leaders do it?

[Pelerin]

The left takes a strong stance against abuse when it suits their overall agenda, and turns a blind eye when it would mean a loss of power for them. This is a good example of situational ethics leading to an "ends justify the means" mindset, and results in great evil.

This seems to me like an excellent summary of the point of the thread: it's easy to let someone off the hook when they're on your team; it's easy to string them up when they're on the other team.

I imagine one of the reasons Dan started this post is that Franklin Graham's name is one that has some degree of weight in the circles that most of us here run in. I, myself, did some volunteer work about a year and a half ago that involved some cooperation with Franklin Graham's organization, Samaritan's Purse. Roman Polanski's name, on the other hand, not so much.

For myself, I've jettisoned a lot of what people like, say, James Dobson, tried to teach me growing up. A lot of that was in the process of thinking through Anabaptism. I still appreciate a lot, maybe even most, of what they have to say. I guess it's just been a little weird to hear for years that Christians have a political duty to social morality, to think and work through those ideas, and to reject or reframe them, only to discover years later that the people espousing them didn't really believe them either. You could name any number of other people that either are or aren't consistent on this; they just aren't a major part of my landscape.

[Dan Z]

The left takes a strong stance against abuse when it suits their overall agenda, and turns a blind eye when it would mean a loss of power for them. This is a good example of situational ethics leading to an "ends justify the means" mindset, and results in great evil.

This seems to me like an excellent summary of the point of the thread: it's easy to let someone off the hook when they're on your team; it's easy to string them up when they're on the other team.

I imagine one of the reasons Dan started this post is that Franklin Graham's name is one that has some degree of weight in the circles that most of us here run in. I, myself, did some volunteer work about a year and a half ago that involved some cooperation with Franklin Graham's organization, Samaritan's Purse. Roman Polanski's name, on the other hand, not so much.

For myself, I've jettisoned a lot of what people like, say, James Dobson, tried to teach me growing up. A lot of that was in the process of thinking through Anabaptism. I still appreciate a lot, maybe even most, of what they have to say. I guess it's just been a little weird to hear for years that Christians have a political duty to social morality, to think and work through those ideas, and to reject or reframe them, only to discover years later that the people espousing them didn't really believe them either. You could name any number of other people that either are or aren't consistent on this; they just aren't a major part of my landscape.

Exactly!

What a relief that some out there understood my original point - this place can deflate one's confidence in one's communication abilities sometimes. The fog of politics lays heavy.

Merci Monseur Pelerin - bien dit!

[temporal1]

Exactly!

What a relief that a few out there understood my original point - this place can deflate one's confidence in one's communication abilities sometimes. The fog of politics lays heavy sometimes.

Merci Monseur Pelerin - bien dit!

really, Dan?
from my observation, on this very forum, you enjoy tremendous respect and support, interest from others regarding every post you share .. but, your confidence is so shaky you melt if questioned?

i am among those who respect you, it takes courage to question you .. but, being somewhat of a risk-taker and fatalist, “what do i have to lose?” .. i try to compose in lucid ways that are logical. but, i never know what to expect in response - often, no response at all. (i do not feel alone.)

in this case, it wasn’t what you were saying, it was how you framed it.
(speaking for myself, alone. there has been no “collusion.”)

having said that .. to be clear, i would not care to trade places with you.
i have no desire to lead in ways you do. you enjoy certain privileges, you have certain obligations.
on this earth, no one “has everything.” everything comes with a price (a wise elder counseled me, years ago).

my mother often said, “it takes all kinds to make the world go-round.”
i wholeheartedly agree.

Jesus knows you. have confidence!

[Dan Z]

in this case, it wasn’t what you were saying, it was how you framed it.

Good point - framing is certainly important.

I also suspect people come into the "current events and politics" room with their guard up.

having said that .. to be clear, i would not care to trade places with you.
i have no desire to lead in ways you do. you enjoy certain privileges, you have certain obligations.
on this earth, no one “has everything.” everything comes with a price (a wise elder counseled me, years ago).

my mother often said, “it takes all kinds to make the world go-round.”
i wholeheartedly agree.

Jesus knows you. have confidence!

[temporal1]

in this case, it wasn’t what you were saying, it was how you framed it.

Good point - framing is certainly important.

I also suspect people come into the "current events and politics" room with their guard up.

having said that .. to be clear, i would not care to trade places with you.
i have no desire to lead in ways you do. you enjoy certain privileges, you have certain obligations.
on this earth, no one “has everything.” everything comes with a price (a wise elder counseled me, years ago).

my mother often said, “it takes all kinds to make the world go-round.”
i wholeheartedly agree.

Jesus knows you. have confidence!

thank you for accepting my weird words in the spirit intended.

[Josh]

There's a simple litmus test.

When discussing moral issues, do we talk about them in politically neutral ways, or do we have to apply the political filter first? Do we talk about whether moral leadership is important in a president, or do we rehash a long list of outrages and make sure that everyone knows that the other political tribe is the guilty one?

I believe Christians should talk about good and evil as defined by the Bible, not "moral issues". Anyone who is the U.S. president will be morally compromised, because they are directly responsible for daily (or hourly) violations of what Jesus taught. I don't believe that a proper standard of good and evil can exist apart from God and the New Testament, other than the old law before Jesus fulfilled it.

If you want to look at the kind of king that was a "man after God's own heart", we see someone who did all the things you keep complaining Trump did. So by a biblical standard, constantly carping about Trump having an affair decades ago doesn't fit an Old Testament standard, either. You need a better basis for judging morality than modern-day, left-leaning sensibilities.

The Bible doesn't frame moral questions this way. This is political partisanship, not biblical thinking. Some people may not be aware of how much they do this - we should all remember that when you point at someone else, three fingers are pointing back at you. Feel free to point this out in any post where I do the same.

Virtually time you talk about Trump, you do this. It's outright rude when you do so in a forum where many people consider you to have fallen into the same sin (adultery) yet they keep quiet about it and do not constantly complain about your bad moral leadership.

Both the left and the right do a lot of political tribalism. But when Christians do this, I think it makes our witness on moral issues suspect. We should be able to discuss moral issues directly as such.

The Bible doesn't say much other than "honour the king".

[Josh]

Most Christians who claim to want “moral leadership” use it as an excuse to support one political tribe or the other.

That may be true - I don't know whether this is "most" Christians or only some. Maybe that's what Franklin Graham was doing under Clinton, and he changed his views when the tribe in power changed. I think that's the point of this thread.

But don't you agree that's wrong?

Of course it's wrong. That's why Franklin Graham needs to abandon his church-state religion and become a kingdom Christian. Of course, doing so would be very costly for him, but it would be the right thing to do. Instead, he chooses to stay involved with politics (as you seem to keep wanting to do on MennoNet) and pick one tribe as his side.

And wouldn't you also agree that whataboutism and deflection can also be an excuse to support one political tribe or the other? Why not stay on topic?

And if you want to stay on topic, pick more neutral people to talk about than Trump. There are even plenty of other Republicans to pick on, and most of the revelations coming out right now about gross, immoral behaviour is on the left wing, not the right.

I notice you've been almost entirely silent, Boot, about all the revelations about horrible sexual assaults being commonplace, covered up, and accepted in Hollywood. Hollywood exerts a certain amount of leadership and control in America and the world, so why aren't you more concerned about that?

And "whataboutism" is a rather modern term used almost entirely by the left to attack the right. I'd appreciate it if you stopped using this term with me (and I've asked you before), unless you want to choose a position where you claim I'm right-wing and you admit to being left-wing.

My take on this is that we really should expect a certain level of basic morality in our leaders, and that having an affair with a porn star, paying her hush money, lying about it, threatening her, and trying to cover it up in ways that may be illegal is a real problem.

What is your take on this? How should Christians talk about this kind of thing when our leaders do it?

The U.S. president isn't one of "our leaders", other than a secular, earthly authority we are told to respect and honour. We shouldn't be surprised when an unbelieving, unconverted person does things like that.

And politics are inherently dirty. You seem to have a desire to somehow make politics clean. You seem to take as gospel truth that account of Ms Clifford's interactions with Trump. It's a lot more plausible to me that these charges are trumped up for political ends, although I have no doubt at all that Trump has done many immoral, godless, evil things. Every President has and probably almost every big-shot real estate developer has.