For Evangelical Christian Supporters of Trump: A Bridge Too Far

There's No Such Thing as the "Lesser of Two Evils" 

I saw a social media post where the pastor of a small town church in the South was trying to justify voting for Trump with a "lesser of two evils" argument.  His tone and his language betrayed the fact that he knew his rational wasn't consistent with the Christian gospel but he seemed compelled to justify his vote by claiming that Trump's appointment of three of the justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade weighed more heavily than the adultery and womanizing, incessant and pathological lying, racism, Anti-Semitism, insurrection, tax and business cheating, rejection of the Christian gospel and attempts to undermine it with substitute theology.   

That's not supported by any biblical text, which is an interpretive requirement from the perspective of Conservative Evangelicals who believe the Bible is the final authority for all Christian doctrine and theology that guides the practice of the faith.  Casting a ballot for Trump, even though he was a terrible President, one of the worst we've ever had, based on his deal-making support for the single issue of an anti-abortion position is the voter's choice.  But that can't be turned into an argument for a "Christian position" that ignores lying, adultery, dishonesty in business dealings, denying or setting aside core principles of the Christian gospel for the sake of politics or lack of moral character in deliberately living and celebrating the worldliness of a lifestyle.  Nor can it be used as a trade off in choosing candidates for office who are incompetent and incapable of governing and leadership.  

My priority, as a Christian voter, is to protect my religious freedom, which depends on the nation's democratic, constitutional government.  It is to elect candidates who will uphold the law, demonstrate loyalty to the ideals and principles supported by the constitution and represent me as one of the people who are the power behind government.  If electing candidates running on support for a single issue is someone else's thing, that's their right to waste their vote.  As we have seen, support for politicians simply because they are opposed to abortion rights doesn't always equal an elected official who respects religious freedom and submits to constitutional law.  And it rarely yields a competent politician who has the interests of his constituents in mind while serving.  

The fact that the former president nominated Supreme Court justices who were willing to overturn Roe v. Wade doesn't weigh on some kind of moral scales in his favor against the immoral "bad side" of the former President.  I've always thought that it would be unconscionable to support someone who celebrates a lifestyle of worldliness that is lived in direct contradiction to the Christian values and virtues of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and to do it deliberately and be intentionally offensive about it, as the former President 45 does.  And it is also unconscionable to fail to recognize his attempt to overturn the constitution and the peaceful transfer of power, based on a lie for which no evidence was ever produced and his instigation of an insurrection intended to destroy American constitutional democracy.  That, too, is evil.  

Trump Should Get a "No" From Any Christian Perspective

Trump was never on my radar screen as a candidate I would ever support, including in that determination my own Christian faith perspective.  But for those who do believe that being a "Christian" of their particular brand is a qualification to get their vote, Trump doesn't meet any of their criteria either.  He is not Christian, certainly not by any conservative, Evangelical definition and that's not judging him, that's taking him at his word.  He belligerently rejects the Evangelical requirement of acknowledging conviction of sin and needing repentance, claiming that he has not done anything requiring repentance or forgiveness.  He defines the "God" he believes in on his own terms, an idea of some sort of spiritual being who looks and acts like Donald Trump.  

The "Evangelical" he has identified as his "spiritual advisor" is a female, self-proclaimed "prophetess", Paula White, who, when she wasn't connected to Trump, was also identified by the vast majority of conservative Evangelicals as a heretical, prosperity gospel preacher.  Virtually all conservative Evangelicals are also staunchly adamant in their rejection of female pastors and preachers, though since Trump has cozied up to White, what was a blistering stream of criticism of her and her ilk has been silenced.  

The writer of the book of Jude, which I think does a great job of warning churches of exactly the kind of intrusion into their ministry that is happening with Trump, describes the kind of lifestyle that Trump has made into his personal identity as "licentiousness," a general term that refers to a self-serving kind of hedonism which reflects characteristics that are diametrically opposed to those produced by the Christian gospel.  "These are grumblers and malcontents," says Jude, "they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage."  

The support by so many Evangelicals for Trump was seen, rightly so, as their placing a priority on political power to achieve their ends over Christian character and moral values.  That support has come at the expense of evangelistic efforts, which are at the lowest point they've been at since the Depression, and a steeply declining church membership and attendance among most Evangelical churches and denominations.  Seeing that a group of Christians has abandoned the spiritual power they claim to have in exchange for political power to achieve their ends on a single issue has undermined the Evangelical image and tainted the Christian gospel.  

When Jesus was tempted by the Devil with the use of worldly power to establish his kingdom, he vehemently rejected it.  Evangelicals have embraced it, denying the gospel and now they must carry the baggage of immorality, lies, insurrection, sedition, and even attempts to label themselves as "suckers" for believing that Jesus really did say the best way to handle opposition is to "turn the other cheek."  

Anti-Semitism Comes to Dinner

Personally, I believe Evangelicals who support Trump crossed that "bridge too far" by ever supporting him in the first place.  A little patience, support for a candidate who shared the same political perspective and lived by the same values would have been the correct approach for those in conservative American churches who think that this is a "Christian nation."  It's difficult for me to reconcile most Republican political perspectives with Christian doctrine and theology because they are much more influenced by, and oriented toward a single racial and economic demographic, but there are Evangelical politicians in the GOP whose lifestyles are consistent with the Christian gospel.  

But the all or nothing approach most Evangelicals take toward the Roe v. Wade decision and the abortion issue creates some awkward difficulties for them when it comes to almost any other political or social issue.  They wind up having to carry the baggage of having to overlook Trump's personal immorality, which he flaunts as part of his image, the denial of government support and help for its citizens in order to cut tax breaks for wealthy constituents, and his openly hostile, abrasive, name-calling immaturity, which runs counter to Christ's insistence that the sincerity of one's faith was visible in the manner in which they treat others, especially their enemies.  

And then there's the new baggage from this past week, as Kanye West, an obnoxiously loud anti-Semite, and Nick Fuentes, a holocaust denier, were invited to dinner at Mar-A-Lago.  The weak and not very emphatic denials from Trump were not credible.  The lack of an uproar among Republicans was predictable, and the silence from the party's Evangelical constituency was despicable.  To claim that one of Trump's great achievements was moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, not a tremendous political achievement by any standard, but to say absolutely nothing about his support and endorsement of the single most notorious anti-Semite among the American population is, without question, a bridge too far.  

There is some muted, quiet discontent among some Evangelical supporters of Trump.  The fact that it takes something as absolutely awful and horrific as this was to get a handful of supporters in his Evangelical constituency murmuring about the wisdom of this dinner engagement is an absolute indictment of their political alliance and opens the door to legitimate criticism of the sincerity of their Christian faith.  And I'll point out here that Fuentes is perhaps one of the more active promoters of Christian nationalism, a purist in that philosophical perspective.  Support for Israel among Evangelicals, tied to their futurist eschatological views of the "end times", is cardinal doctrine.  Fuentes' appearance at Mar-A-Lago, along with that of Kanye West, should have caused a tsunami of criticism from the religious right.  It should have been a bridge too far for even some of the hard-core Evangelical supporters of Trump, who have abandoned all genuine Christian gospel principles at this point.  

Holding the Line

There are churches, pastors, church leaders and many individual Christians within conservative Evangelicalism who are holding the line against this intrusion of godless conservative politics into their ministry.  They understand that Jesus himself separated his "kingdom," his church, from secular political power.  Two thousand year of church history proves that his approach was the right one, and that when the church depends on the power of politics to accomplish its mission and purpose, both of those things are subverted and not achieved.  

A former President, who has announced his candidacy for the Presidency, invited two prominent, well-known anti-Semites, one of them a denier of reality and factual history which occurred during the horror of the Holocaust, to his dinner table.  That constitutes and endorsement of their views, and is a glimpse into what a second Trump presidency would look like.  The fact that this "bridge too far" move did not create more of a stir, especially among Trump's more conservative constituency, is an advance warning sign of some very dangerous ideology taking root in this country.  There are no excuses that can explain this away.  Those Evangelicals who never engaged or allowed the intrusion of Trumpism made the right move.  Those left wondering whether there's a problem, even after this earthquake,  are lost.

As the Apostle Jude said, in his very short epistle, "Certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Lord and Master, Jesus Christ."