Ask the Thoughtful Pastor: How can evangelicals claim moral authority by insisting on voting for Trump?

I suspect three issues drive Dr. Grudem’s support of Mr. Trump, two spoken, one unspoken. The two openly acknowledged issues: One, limit access to birth control along with the elimination of abortion services (both primarily female concerns); two: prepare for the likelihood of multiple Supreme Court vacancies during the next four years.

The unspoken one, which you mentioned: Mrs. Clinton is female.

For Dr. Grudem, only men may function in ecclesiastical areas where clear governing authority is present, where the Bible is taught in a public, authoritative or professional manner, and where public recognition or visibility is given, such as ordination as clergy.

The President of the US does not carry church-related authority. Yet our uniquely religious nation means religious sentiment drives many voting decisions. So the very idea of a female in such an authoritative, professional and visible setting may be troubling to many in the religious world.

However, a biblical argument to deny Mrs. Clinton the right to serve in the highest office in the land would be difficult to make. Easier to affirm Mr. Trump as God’s choice, no matter how much twisting of the argument must take place in the process.

Because Dr. Grudem’s controversial article is actually a defense for the reasons the US should elect a GOP president, his article might have carried more moral weight by simply telling people to vote Republican, no matter the candidate. He highlights the same fears that Mr.Trump’s campaign has surfaced.

Instead of a more honest, “Vote Republican no matter what,” Dr. Grudem praises Trump. “I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.”

Even so, this unusual election year has surfaced issues that don’t get enough attention: simmering racial tensions, hidden, extreme sexism, and scary economic concerns. Because of it, we are more aware of the brokenness around us.

Moral people, particularly those claiming a religious base for their morality, should sit up and take notice of these concerns. But to speak by whitewashing the unusual moral deficiencies of one candidate while throwing boiling tar and goose feathers on the other uses an immoral methodology to affirm morality. That’s hypocrisy. And it’s immoral.

Dear Thoughtful Pastor:  What is the difference between spiritual bullying and church discipline? Is there one? If one is in leadership, how do we lovingly correct? If we are not in leadership, how do we recognize when that relationship becomes abusive?

Easy-peasy: any relationship, including one of church authority, is abusive when one person treats another in a way he or she would hate to be treated in return or by someone else.

So we correct in the way we want to be corrected, generally with much understanding and massive slack. If we must correct another, we do so in a way that we know would bring good results in ourselves: in a teaching/pastoral/compassionate manner that encourages learning and greater self-understanding.

Anything else is just wrong. Get out ASAP.

[Note: a version of this column is scheduled to run in the August 12, 2016 edition of the Denton Record Chronicle. The Thoughtful Pastor, AKA Christy Thomas, welcomes all questions for the column. Although the questioner will not be identified, I do need a name and verifiable contact information in case the newspaper editor has need of it. Please email questions to: thoughtfulpastor@gmail.com.]