I went to a meeting this evening at which the speaker was the former Head of Fuller Theological Seminary whose job it was to address the tensions surrounding the 2016 election and to suggest ways that people who voted for opposing candidates could get along during and after the election with kindness, gentility, and civility.  Before the lecture I wrote a question that I thought I might ask at a question-answer session. I didn’t ask my question.   My question involved the most unsettling aspect of the election cycle… the rhetoric and behaviors of a candidate from the political nominating conventions up to the day of voting.  It was, and still is, difficult to know how active, serious Christians can rationalize support for any political candidate when he or she blatantly demonstrates behaviors that are considered to be immoral in the context of Christianity or of any other of the world’s major religions. 

The speaker of the evening is an author, teacher, and generally an expert on the subject of civil behavior. Representing the Church, the lecturer did what the church does best.  He avoided offending people who made the terrible mistake of voting for and affirming a woefully inadequate candidate for the most important and powerful office in our country.  He made people who voted for Donald Trump for President feel as if they had not done anything wrong, and he made those who didn’t vote for the winner feel as if it is their responsibility to find a way to get along peacefully with those whose candidate won the election.

The speaker was very effective.  He is undoubtedly a good man.  He didn’t say which of the candidates got his vote. He did what he was called to the meeting to do