The purity test and the impure

There may always be people determined to tell other people how to live, but ultimately, no one knows another person well enough to make decisions for them.  The best they can do is try to make or support decisions they think you would make.  Do they know your preferences?  More importantly, do they respect your choices, and your right to make them for yourself, and to deal with the consequences if you don't get what you want?

Christianity Today apparently wants to tell you who can be your president and why or why not.  Trump is not pure enough.  He's just a flawed mortal human being who has done the country enormous good and broken no laws.  The monster!  But in the rush from discernment to judgment, the C.T. editors seem to have bypassed the Bible as well as the Constitution.  Neither document insists on purity in a leader.

I understand that the C.T. editors think Trump has broken a law, but this seems to be putting negative spin on a lawful act to ask Ukraine to look into political corruption in its country involving participants that are U.S. nationals.  Biden got mentioned because he bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold U.S. financial aid.  Trump released a transcript of the call where his "crime" occurred.  I see no crime, but can't we at least use the Hillary Clinton standard of "no intent" to commit a crime?  Must we assume corrupt intent?

There is an in-built flaw in purity tests, as such tests further fracture our social divisions by segueing into the desire to have "someone just like me" to be in charge: senator, mayor, president, governor.  But you cannot have a diverse society if each minority group needs its own representation.  The president is never going to be 60.4% white and 13% black and 3% LBGT, or whatever the actual demographics of the country might be at a given time.

At the moment, the country is majority white, and some non-whites complain that a white president is a problem.  What about a non-white president in relation to the current white majority?  How is anyone supposed to lead all of us if he didn't accurately reflect instantaneous demographics on election day?  What if the demographics change a year later?

People who get outraged that Trump isn't perfect should recall that his title is "President," not "Holy Savior, Prince of Peace, King of Kings." Only one perfect Man ever existed, and he never ran for office.  Trump is getting the jobs done that we want, so we can work and worship freely.

You don't have to like him, though as a Christian, you have to at least try to love him, but we are better off with Trump as president.  He shoots from the lip, yes, but he hits the target on things that affect our lives.  That's not going to cause me to lose any sleep.  Did he provoke changes to the economy that finally percolated down to me getting to work again?  Why, yes.  Yes, he did.  That's the "hope and change" I wanted, that his predecessor was unable to deliver.

There may always be people determined to tell other people how to live, but ultimately, no one knows another person well enough to make decisions for them.  The best they can do is try to make or support decisions they think you would make.  Do they know your preferences?  More importantly, do they respect your choices, and your right to make them for yourself, and to deal with the consequences if you don't get what you want?

Christianity Today apparently wants to tell you who can be your president and why or why not.  Trump is not pure enough.  He's just a flawed mortal human being who has done the country enormous good and broken no laws.  The monster!  But in the rush from discernment to judgment, the C.T. editors seem to have bypassed the Bible as well as the Constitution.  Neither document insists on purity in a leader.

I understand that the C.T. editors think Trump has broken a law, but this seems to be putting negative spin on a lawful act to ask Ukraine to look into political corruption in its country involving participants that are U.S. nationals.  Biden got mentioned because he bragged about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by threatening to withhold U.S. financial aid.  Trump released a transcript of the call where his "crime" occurred.  I see no crime, but can't we at least use the Hillary Clinton standard of "no intent" to commit a crime?  Must we assume corrupt intent?

There is an in-built flaw in purity tests, as such tests further fracture our social divisions by segueing into the desire to have "someone just like me" to be in charge: senator, mayor, president, governor.  But you cannot have a diverse society if each minority group needs its own representation.  The president is never going to be 60.4% white and 13% black and 3% LBGT, or whatever the actual demographics of the country might be at a given time.

At the moment, the country is majority white, and some non-whites complain that a white president is a problem.  What about a non-white president in relation to the current white majority?  How is anyone supposed to lead all of us if he didn't accurately reflect instantaneous demographics on election day?  What if the demographics change a year later?

People who get outraged that Trump isn't perfect should recall that his title is "President," not "Holy Savior, Prince of Peace, King of Kings." Only one perfect Man ever existed, and he never ran for office.  Trump is getting the jobs done that we want, so we can work and worship freely.

You don't have to like him, though as a Christian, you have to at least try to love him, but we are better off with Trump as president.  He shoots from the lip, yes, but he hits the target on things that affect our lives.  That's not going to cause me to lose any sleep.  Did he provoke changes to the economy that finally percolated down to me getting to work again?  Why, yes.  Yes, he did.  That's the "hope and change" I wanted, that his predecessor was unable to deliver.