This is a Time of Winnowing

It astonishes me to hear people characterize this Access Hollywood 2005 Trump recording as "guy talk," "locker room banter," and even "lewd comments," as though it were all about his choice of words.

Open your eyes! He bragged about his lifestyle of sexual assault and we have no reason to believe that (a) he's ashamed of it, or (b) it's over. This is not about words. It's about the abuse of power by a sexual predator. And if he will abuse his power for that end, he will reach out and grab many other objects of his desires (money, revenge, etc.).
"You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab them by the xxxx. You can do anything."

So am I for Hillary Clinton? Certainly not! She is criminal in her own ways.

A Christian must not vote in fear. "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." Proverbs 3:5-6

The three young Hebrew men who refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s statue had no idea how or whether the Lord would save them from what looked like an impossible situation of pagan oppression. But they refused to calculate within the horizon of human alternatives. They trusted God and set their course to reflect that trust.
“Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” Daniel 3:17-18
Neither Hillary Clinton (D) nor Donald Trump (R) is even minimally qualified to be president. Some people think they have to vote for one or the other, perhaps the less of two evils. To do otherwise, they think would be to waste their votes. But this misunderstands what voting is. If an effective vote, as opposed to a wasted vote, is a vote that makes a difference, then every vote is wasted unless a particular election comes down to a one vote margin. For example, voting for either Trump or Clinton in New York State. Or voting for either one in Vermont, Texas, California, or Wyoming, states that are reliably either Democrat or Republican. But your vote is a moral affirmation of a candidate. It is a citizen statement to the government. What kind of person do you want governing you and what sort of laws (or restraint from making law) do you want to see established?

If Evan McMullen (I) is on the ballot in New York, I may vote for him. I may write in Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. The Constitution Party tends to put up candidates who are, to put it gently, “not ready for prime time.” But given the circumstances, simply the name of the party could send the right message to the political class in Washington. I will not, however, give my sacred affirmation to either Trump or Clinton, neither of whom should be allowed anywhere near public authority of any sort, and certainly not the awesome executive power of the United States federal government.
This is a time of winnowing. Do we obediently trust God with our future or do we not? God in his sovereign goodness has given us these two morally appalling major party candidates. The question for us is how we will respond in faith.

The Voting Christian: Wisdom for the Ballot Box "Introduction"

Here is the introduction to the collection of WORLD magazine columns that I thought suitable for providing citizen-wisdom in the months leading up to the 2016 general election.

***************

I was recently interviewed by a Brooklyn media outfit on how evangelicals see the current election. Several times I was asked, “So who is God’s candidate?” I didn’t give a straight answer because it’s a complicated question. Nonetheless, it’s one that Christians are required to ponder.

On one level, “God’s candidate” means the one who intentionally and perfectly conforms his policies and judgments to the mind of God. But there is not, and cannot be, such a candidate. Only King Jesus fits that description. On another, quite unavoidable level, God’s candidate is the one he will raise up by our democratic republican system to govern us. But that, of course, is his business. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29).

The question can also be asking, however, which of the candidates—given what God has revealed of himself—does God want us to select. In the past, that question has seemed deceptively easy to answer. I say deceptively easy because it is never as easy as we think it is, as though in a given contest no serious examination of the candidates were necessary and no careful investigation of Christian principles and sober anticipation of natural consequences were in order. And as though that itself were easy.

In 1976, the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter seemed to be the evangelical choice. In 1980, his opponent, the Moral Majority backed Ronald Reagan seemed an equally clear choice, despite his divorce and irregular church attendance. Or perhaps just looking back it seems that way. In 2000, it seemed to be George W. Bush, the born again Reaganite. And yet today many conservative evangelicals are lamenting—this side of their humiliating defeat in the culture wars, from fighting the feminist ERA to defending the DOMA citadel—how those battles and devotion to those champions distorted the gospel not only in the public eye but even in their own understanding.

Yet the Christian is inescapably a citizen not only of Christ’s heavenly kingdom but also of this earthly republic of laws. And by God’s great mercy, government in America is not just something other people do in faraway places and impose on us, though sadly that is increasingly so. It is still the beauty of what Lincoln described at Gettysburg as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

If a Christian people is to govern itself and choose wisely those who will represent them in their decision-making responsibilities, then Christians need to be properly informed. They need godly wisdom. They certainly need to understand, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism says (Question 3), what the Scriptures principally teach, i.e., “what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” But the Book of Proverbs teaches us,

I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.

      And I find knowledge and discretion

The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.

Pride and arrogance and the way of evil

      and perverted speech I hate.

I have counsel and sound wisdom;

      I have insight; I have strength.

By me kings reign,

      and rulers decree what is just;

by me princes rule,

      and nobles, all who govern justly. (8:12-16)

Christians in their capacity as free citizens have a responsibility to seek and grow in civic wisdom. This wisdom fits them to participate helpfully in the tasks of self-government for the common good and the glory of God. Though this certainly begins in the fear of the Lord, it culminates in making wise and prudent judgments concerning difficult matters that confront us in a world clouded and twisted by sin. This wisdom requires us to clear our heads, inform our minds, and chasten our hearts for distinguishing Christ from the world and the love of God from infatuation with the world, the flesh, and the devil—the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life, as the old King James Version rendered the beloved disciple’s warning (I John 2:16).

This book is far from sufficient for that task. Ideally it calls for a life’s worth of learning in the Scriptures, the insights of those greater than I, and as complete a knowledge of current affairs as one can reasonably muster. But if the reader is urgently occupied with family, business, church, and community and needs a handy help for understanding the times, perhaps this book will do.

Donald and Hillary: Disasters Foreign and Domestic

In legislative matters and court appointments, the president shares powers with Congress, part of the checks and balances in our government. But in foreign affairs, because the world beyond our borders is less predictable and more dangerous, the president has greater freedom to act. For that reason, the consequences of his action in that sphere are potentially ominous. So NBC's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" with the two major candidates for White House, moderated by Matt Lauer, was an event of considerable importance. It was a combination of interview and town hall meeting with each candidate receiving a 25 minute grilling, first Hillary Clinton, followed by Donald Trump.

Mrs Clinton started strong. She came across as tough and steely, mentally sharp, and in command. But that was the first thirty seconds. Then she got what she deserved on her sketchy handing of classified information on her unsecured personal server, its consequences for national security, and its implications for the quality of her judgement. Much of her time on the hot seat centered on matters of dishonesty (explaining/spinning the never ending charges related to her emails) and bad judgement (her Iraq War vote, the Libya debacle, and the Iran nuclear deal she initiated). It was not a good night for her. Even the staging  was awkward. The way she wiggled her way back onto her stool after each walkabout was painful to watch.

Mr Trump was amazing, but only in this: he still knows nothing at all about foreign policy, its history, principles, and conduct. And apparently he's fine with that. One would think that after the convention in the lead up to the debates he would have gathered his advisors and reviewed the various hot spots, asking in each case: What are the issues, what are the dangers, and what are the options? He might have met with a sympathetic professor for a condensed version of POL 208 Introduction to International Relations. "Just give me the highlights: the broad principles and key terms." But evidently he doesn't care. Perhaps he doesn't expect to win or doesn't really want to. The one point on which he became quite animated, however, was what he saw as our missed opportunity in Iraq to grab their oil. "To the victor go the spoils," he reminded us, as though citing a truism. Has he thought about how that would change all our international relations, and even change us. It's a short step from seizing oil to pay for an invasion to invading in order to seize oil or whatever booty may be had.

But how did last night help a voter who is perplexed by the prospect of two seemingly equally repulsive and nationally disastrous alternatives?

If your chief concern for this country is for a foreign policy that secures our national security and if, as Mitt Romney claimed (quite plausibly) in 2012, our chief national security threat is a resurgent Russia, then Hillary Clinton should get your vote. I expect that she has learned from her failed reset attempt and is bitterly resentful toward Russian president Vladimir Putin for his likely involvement in exposing her incriminating emails and disrupting the Democratic National Convention. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is striking soft on Putin, behaving almost like the Russian strongman's stooge. He admires Putin's "leadership" and blames the United States for our currently tense relationship. Trump believes that with his friendlier approach, co-operation is sure to follow. Call it a "reset," if you will.

However, if the chief concern facing our country is the freedom of Christ's people to live out their Christian lives with integrity and protecting the weakest and most innocent among us from an intensified abortion holocaust (I can imagine that these are high priorities for God, the Lord and Judge of the nations), then Trump would be where to send your vote. Not that he cares about these issues. Indeed, at the Republican National Convention he signaled his sympathies with "LGBTQ" people in what they see as their mortal struggle with traditional Christianity and its faithful adherents. (But he would fight to the death for our freedom to say "Merry Christmas" in a shopping mall! So we at least have that.) And he is only professedly (and that recently so) but unconvincingly pro-life. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is openly and implacably hostile to Christian concerns in these matters. There doesn't appear to be much that she sincerely believes, but her core convictions certainly include (besides enriching herself and her political war chest) the most militant feminist orthodoxy and the advancing logic of the sexual revolution. So if elected president, she will be hound and henchman for the LGBTs and will spare no effort to demolish whatever protections exist for babies in the womb.

None of this is to say that anything is predictable. Trump could end up simply a milder enemy of Christianity and friend of murdering moms than Hillary would be while destroying the American conservative movement in the process (read Prof. Tom Nichols on the latter) and failing or refusing to deliver on conservative Supreme Court hopes. He could also conceivably lead us into WWIII through sheer clumsy bombast.  Alternatively, Hillary Clinton could find herself stalled in her diabolical schemes by Republican congressional opposition, legal entanglements (these grow where our Hillary goes), and a united Christian front of her own making, meanwhile saving Eastern Europe and NATO from the Russian bear out of sheer desire for personal revenge.

When you're dealing with ignorance, vanity, incompetence, treachery, and mendacity on this level, the voter's confidence in his or her ability to predict the consequences of a candidate's election is discouragingly low. One must either judge which one issue is the pivotal issue for the nation (for example, slavery in 1860) or judge that neither candidate meets even the minimal requirements for the office and so either vote for a third candidate who does, write in a candidate, or vote only in the "down ticket" races.

We should all learn a lesson from this and sober up for 2020.

An Atheist Ally of Religion? Sounds Reasonable

I repost this from a 2007 post at my Principalities and Powers blog. Someone has recently drawn new attention to it for the connection Dalrymple draws between Christianity (publicly hated) and the  benefits of Western civilization (freedom, equality, compassion, etc.).  Daniel Lattier writes, "you can't enjoy the fruit by cutting down the tree." (Well, you can, but your children won't.)

***********

In the recent issue of City Journal (Autumn 2007), Theodore Dalrymple contributes his thoughts on the current “epidemic of rash books” by people whom we are calling neo-atheists, people such as Daniel Dennett, A. C. Grayling, Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, for whom we here at The King’s College have a special fondness – despite his efforts to discourage our affections – because he was recently our guest.

Dalrymple’s essay, “What the New Atheists Don’t See: To Regret Religion is to Regret Western Civilization,” is a deeply humane and touchingly generous consideration of the controversy. It does not surprise me to find a defense of religious faith that is eloquent and profoundly sensible. It is a refreshing surprise, however, that it comes from a self-described atheist.

While the whole essay is a delight, both intellectually and aesthetically, l will hazard injustice by sharing two of his points. First, he says that even these scribbling neo-atheists find it impossible to avoid the language of teleology. Viewing the world as having purpose appears to be inescapable for us. “I think Dennett’s use of the language of evaluation and purpose is evidence of a deep-seated metaphysical belief (however caused) that Providence exists in the universe, a belief that few people, confronted by the mystery of beauty and of existence itself, escape entirely.” The very weapons we turn against God bear the evidence of his handiwork and proclaim him.

Though these currently popular authors see the Taliban and their atrocities in every religious person, Dalrymple, noting the rarity of religiously motivated cruelty, draws attention to the decency that the eternal perspective engenders in by far most people who genuinely embrace it. After quoting from a meditation by Bishop Joseph Hall(1574-1656) on contentment and self-control, Dalrymple concludes that, “moderation comes more naturally to the man who believes in something not merely higher than himself, but higher than mankind. After all, the greatest enjoyment of the usages of this world, even to excess, might seem rational when the usages of this world are all that there is.” It is at least arguable that unsentimental, atheistic rationalism leads logically to debauchery and ultimately to tyranny.

He drives home this connection between piety and moderation by comparing the genuine fruit of Christian faith with what these grumpy anti-theists have to offer:

“Let us compare Hall’s meditation “Upon the Sight of a Harlot Carted” with Harris’s statement that some people ought perhaps to be killed for their beliefs:

With what noise, and tumult, and zeal of solemn justice, is this sin punished! The streets are not more full of beholders, than clamours. Every one strives to express his detestation of the fact, by some token of revenge: one casts mire, another water, another rotten eggs, upon the miserable offender. Neither, indeed, is she worthy of less: but, in the mean time, no man looks home to himself. It is no uncharity to say, that too many insult in this just punishment, who have deserved more. . . . Public sins have more shame; private may have more guilt. If the world cannot charge me of those, it is enough, that I can charge my soul of worse. Let others rejoice, in these public executions: let me pity the sins of others, and be humbled under the sense of my own.

“Who sounds more charitable, more generous, more just, more profound, more honest, more humane: Sam Harris or Joseph Hall, D.D., late lord bishop of Exeter and of Norwich?”

This article brought to mind my doctoral studies at Boston College(1985-92). The political science department there was a rare gathering of several political theorists and political scientists all of whom were either students of Leo Strauss, students of his best students, or deeply influenced by him. None of them was a Christian, nor even particularly religious (to my knowledge), but they respected the weight of the Christian tradition and the serious alternative that it presents to rationalism, both classical and modern. In other words, they respected the legitimacy of the Jerusalem versus Athens debate, as any seriously reflective person would. Of course, they opted for Athens, but there was nonetheless a fruitful conversation between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, agnostics and atheists. And the world is a better place for it.

Dalrymple is clearly an atheist with whom I could have a conversation, though with this particular atheist I would surely do most of the listening.

Is Trump Christianity’s Friend or Not?

Donald Trump (who as candidate for the presidency is now Donald J. Trump) took the stage at the Republican National Convention to deliver his acceptance speech, fully the populist we have come to expect. But he also revealed more than we have seen on the campaign trail. Thursday night, Donald the Democrat showed himself. And the partisan crowd cheered, though perhaps just from emotional momentum. I wonder how they feel the morning after.

The bad boy Donald was there. He promised the wall and to ban Muslim immigration. Actually, he only used the “Muslim” once in his speech and it was not in this connection. He said, “we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” Presumably these nations of origin include France and Belgium.

There were also some welcome affirmations. He got down to the fundamentals of political theory when he stated: “The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.” He said he joined the race for the White House “so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves.” That is a biblical view of government. The Old Testament prophets rebuked the leaders of Israel for not acting on it.

In populist fashion, and perhaps credibly, Trump presented himself as a regular guy from Queens – despite the inherited wealth, the prep school, and the lifestyle of the rich and famous. He can be crude because regular guys like the electricians and bricklayers he talks with on the job site can be crude and he speaks their language. He connects with ordinary people and their concerns, and gives voice to those concerns. “I am your voice,” he assured us. This horrifies both the liberal elite and the conservative cognoscenti.

For the most part, people can be trusted to identify and defend their interests. Our system of political and economic liberty presupposes that. But ordinary people don’t necessarily grasp the big picture or the fundamental principles on which the defense of their interests depend. The cognoscenti do. Neither Adam Smith nor the architects of our republic were ordinary people.

Donald Trump is not guided by political theory. But he is guided by convictions he has held all his life. For example, he has been complaining about bad trade deals for decades. And for decades he has been a Democrat. Last night, the Republican Party nominated a Democrat to be its 2016 candidate for president. It’s not just the economic protectionism. His daughter Ivanka introduced him with assurances that he will push hard for universal access to daycare for working mothers. This is a big government, feminist policy proposal that Democrats have been advocating for 30 years. It not only recognizes women’s participation in the workforce; it will encourage it. It will also thus further fracture the home and dilute the value of an individual income whether the father’s or that of the single mother. She also rolled out the “equal-pay-for-equal-work” complaint which has no basis in 2016 reality but which Democrats like Hillary Clinton continue to cite as a major justice issue of our day. The crowd cheered anyway.

Then there was the homosexual theme. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was wearing a pink triangle lapel pin during his interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Then tech mogul Peter Thiel, one of the most prominent speakers on the most important evening of the convention, affirmed with campaign approval: “I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American. I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline.” The crowd started cheering at the word “gay” and it built from there. Apparently the Trump supporters at the convention were Democrats too. Apparently it was the Democratic National Convention #1, to be followed by #2 next week. Perhaps that overstates the point.

Then Trump himself stopped far short of where Barack Obama has gone since his election in 2008 and where Hillary Clinton will charge with battle cries next week: the complete normalization of every form of omnisexuality and the severe punishment of anyone who stands in its way or even privately disagrees with it. Trump didn’t promise to protect them from Christians or from moral conservatives, but only from Islamic jihadists. “Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted [the] LGBTQ community. No good. And we're going to stop it. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me." The crowd roared their approval. Then he added, off script of course: "And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.”

The fact that he went beyond the now common term LGBT and added the Q was a signal to that faction that he sympathizes and will defend their interests. The previous night, Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation and a highly placed black woman in the Trump universe, and thus a strategic speaker, included in her list of answers to Black Lives Matter: “LGBTQ lives matter.” She also included the Q which stands for either questioning or queer or both.

The question for Christian voters is this. What is the relationship between Trump’s signaled support for LGBT concerns and religious liberty which has come widely under assault by that faction? Keep in mind that this is no longer 1980. The Christian concern today are not to restore Christian America. It is simply to preserve the freedom to live their Christian lives consistent with their faith, whether in their homes, businesses, schools and colleges, or even churches. Angry and vengeful forces of progressive cultural enlightenment are battering on these doors to find, silence, and rehabilitate any remaining holdouts against the post-modern sexual revolution of godless human autonomy. Yes, that’s how I would put it.

In his speech, Trump thanked evangelicals and religious people for their support. But he made no mention of religious liberty. Ivanka called him the champion of the helpless and forgotten, but the candidate himself made no claim to be our champion in this defensive fight.

So where does he stand? There’s a little over three months left for seeking clarification on this. Perhaps Jerry Falwell Jr could press his friend on this. Vice-president Pence, who is “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” is certainly well-positioned to lobby for the protection of law for God’s people.

Donald Trump is a Democrat – a law and order, foreign policy hawk Democrat. Insofar as the Grand Old Party is now the party of Trump and his descendants and all the apparent Democrats who cheered him from the convention floor last night, there is no more Republican Party. So regardless of whom we elect in November, it may be time to draw out of the Republican Congressional delegation a philosophically conservative and sympathetically Christian party that would present itself as being in everyone’s interest. Call it the Liberty Party or hijack the Constitution Party. But big government, progressive, Trumpist populism cannot remain the only viable alternative to the post-Obama Democrats.

Not the Sheeple You Thought They Were

from BBC.com

What the British people just did in the Brexit vote, regardless of whether or not it was wise, is extraordinary as an act of a free people. A majority of the people, after a lengthy and vigorous public campaign in which the entire political, cultural, and commercial establishment told everyone that remaining was the only sensible option, 52% voted to leave the EU. If you remove Scotland from the equation where people had good reason to remain, and discount the youth vote which I suspect was moved inordinately by celebrities like David Beckham and Keira Knightley, the remaining vote was even more decisive. Consider also that Greater London which, understandably, would want to leave the business environment unruffled also voted strongly in favor of remaining. Yet Leave won.

Fraser Nelson, editor of the Spectator, puts it this way in today's Wall Street Journal:

Never has there been a greater coalition of the establishment than that assembled by Prime Minister David Cameron for his referendum campaign to keep the U.K. in the European Union. There was almost every Westminster party leader, most of their troops and almost every trade union and employers’ federation. There were retired spy chiefs, historians, football clubs, national treasures like Stephen Hawking and divinities like Keira Knightley. And some global glamour too: President Barack Obama flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook. 

And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.

This is all the more reason for those who are in charge to take seriously what the people have just said. By the same measure, they should take just as seriously what Scotland has said with one clear voice.

Congratulations, John Bull. You Have Your Home Back.

A post-Hogarth, Napoleonic era (1803) John Bull
"If you won't let me eat my bread and cheese in peace and comfort, I'll blow you away"

According to Derek Jarrett in England in the Age of Hogarth, British satirist William Hogarth (1697-1764) transformed the familiar image of John Bull into "an archetype of the freeborn Englishman" overagainst the slavish and sluttish Frenchies of the pre-revolutionary, Bourbon era. Hogarth pictured him "like the animal from which he took his name: strong, virile...superbly stubborn and intractable, always ready to toss and gore those who tried to tame him" (p.22). It is the spirit of John Bull that made Great Britain, even after more than half a century of the welfare state, not quite a good fit for the European super-state and summon enough pluck to bid political adieu to their busily and efficiently benevolent overlords on the continent in the Brexit vote.

When the BBC announced just before midnight on June 23 that Leave had won the referendum on British membership in the European Union, I hurried upstairs to break the historic news to my children, two of whom were still bickering in their dark room. My 14-year old son interrupted my short history of the EU, asking me if I could put this issue in simple terms. "Syrians and sausages," I said. "Essentially, many people were upset at not having control over who comes into the country and how they make their sausages." Any citizen of the EU or anyone admitted to it by a member state (so, whether a Pole or a Syrian) is free to take up residence in Britain. Brits were looking at the flood of Middle Eastern migrants, their strain on social services, the terrorist attacks in Paris and Belgium, and the problems they already suffer in these regards, and said, "Not on my island!"

Just as burdensome has been the flood of at times ridiculous regulations from Brussels, the natural product of  politically coupling, as Bret Stephens put it, "France's obsession with bureaucracy with Germany's obsession with rules." Eggs may not be bought by the dozen but only by weight. Cucumbers with greater than allowable curvature may not be sold. In a restaurant, olive oil at your table must be served in a factory-sealed, pre-packaged dispenser. Just do a web search for "silly European regulations" and explore.

In brief, as Boris Johnson said in his sober and statesmanly victory reflections, the British people decided 52-48 "to take back control."

When warned of, and at times even threatened with, dire economic consequences should they decide to leave, Britons on balance were more impressed with the money they could save as one of the three net givers in the 28-nation European partnership (along with France and Germany, obviously). Greece? See to yourself.

Scotland, however, voted uniformly to remain. I asked on Twitter why Scots would rather be governed by unaccountable overseas bureaucrats than by an assembly of their own elected representatives in London. My father, who emigrated from Scotland to Canada in 1958, gave me the answer.

"I grew up in one of the satellite areas of the English realm. London looked after England and did as little as possible for the outliers. The EU with its laws and funds changed that and raised the status and profile of those areas. The UK became more of a reality. Brexit may put the Scots under London rule again, to their disadvantage. Scots say, "If its not Scottish it's crap." English normally say, "If its not English it's not British."

Westminster governed as though Scotland were the crazy aunt in the attic. Scots would send MPs to London only to see them co-opted into the power circuit and social scene and forget who sent them. But the EU didn't know enough to treat Scots like irrelevant blue-painted savages, so they provided the same funding benefits (i.e., statist redistribution of wealth) that they supplied to every needy region. Caledonia will soon find herself once more alone in the home with her self-absorbed husband who doesn't provide. It is expected that she will soon want out. Whether by that time there is still an EU to which they can flee for refuge is yet to be seen.

As for Europe, they would be wise to pull back and retrench. Refuse Turkey. Deregulate. Prefer the harmony of local diversity to harmonization by centrally issued edicts. I think of the king who ceded power to the demos and received scorn from his friends who shamed him for handing down to his son a diminished crown. He responded that it would be a more long-lasting one. Just as David Cameron promised Scotland meaningful reforms and a better partnership in the future after he turned back their independence bid, Europe, having lost Britain to their independence and seeing others now call for the same way out, should re-envision their union for the times -- less ambitious, less intrusive, but more durable.

But they won't. They are in their positions of power and in this position of crisis because they are people of a self-righteous and controlling nature. So they won't.

God’s Candidate

I was recently interviewed by a small Brooklyn media outfit on how evangelicals see the current election. Several times I was asked, “So who is God’s candidate?” I didn’t give a straight answer because it’s a complicated question. But it’s one that Christians are required to ponder.

On one level, “God’s candidate” means the one who perfectly conforms his policies and judgments to the mind of God. But there is not, and cannot be, such a candidate. Only King Jesus fits that description.

But the question can also be asking which of the candidates, given what God has revealed of himself, does God want us to select. In the past, that question has seemed deceptively easy to answer. In 1980, the choice was arguably the Moral Majority backed Ronald Reagan, despite his divorce and irregular church attendance. In 2000, it seemed to be George W. Bush, the born again Reaganite. In 1976, the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter was the evangelical choice. But some of these weren’t so obviously the godly choice further into their presidencies.

In 2016, however, God has really stirred the pot. Donald Trump says he’s Presbyterian, but he has spent his churchless life in the pursuit of mammon, and not for charitable giving or serving people through commerce – just filling bigger and bigger barns. Hillary Clinton is nominally Methodist but shares this obsession with self-enrichment and adds the progressive agenda of radical human autonomy, a religion of its own.

Bernie Sanders, though Jewish by birth, is an atheistic socialist. Interestingly, a poll revealed that more people see his policies reflecting the ethics of Jesus than see it in any other candidate. (Admittedly, all the numbers are low.) Surely they have in mind his concern for the poor. But he cares in a way that God has not instructed us to care for them. In fact, his proposed remedies undermine our ability to love them biblically. Vastly higher taxes leave people with less money to give either directly or through churches and charitable organizations. This is true of the well-to-do and ordinary income earners alike. We would also have less inclination to give. “The government will provide.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that such policies actually end up hurting the people they attempt to help.

But all three candidates share in that spirit. Hillary Clinton is a statist for whom the federal government is the answer to every ill, though she is less convincingly concerned about the poor. Donald Trump has lived his life based, as he says, on three principles: grab, grab, and grab. Now he is promising to bring the rest of us in on the deal. But what does it profit a nation of voters if they can grab even a whole world of mammon but lose their eternal inheritance.

On yet another, quite unavoidable level, God’s candidate is the one he will raise up by our democratic republican system to govern us, and who is perhaps none of these three. But that’s his business (Deut. 29:29). Ours is to know his word, to know our world, and to apply the one to the other in the exercise of our civic duty on Election Day, whether it be to vote or abstain from voting.