Posted on 03/17/2018 7:20:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Michael Gerson's much-ballyhooed articles in The Atlantic and The Washington Post have made quite a splash, at least among evangelicals. Much of the response has been of the hand-wringing kind. As in, what right does Gerson have to throw evangelicals under the bus because of their support for Donald Trump? Well, count me as an evangelical who mostly agrees with Michael Gerson. I believe that the overall support for Donald Trump is a self-imposed obstacle to evangelicals' ability to be a faithful witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
When Gerson, after listing just some of Trump's sizeable moral failings, writes, "Yet religious conservatives who once blanched at PG-13 public standards now yawn at such NC-17 maneuvers," I add my sad "Amen."
To be clear, though, I do have some fairly substantial points of disagreement with Gerson, at least over what he's articulated in his two recent essays. In fact, my points of disagreement may trump my agreement.
For starters, Gerson uses a very broad brush with which to paint all evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump. One of the problems with his essays is that he doesn't allow space for evangelicals who are deeply embarrassed and disturbed by Trump's "NC-17 maneuvers." Instead, he implies that all "Trump evangelicals are best understood as conservative political operatives, seeking benefits for their interest group from politicians who are most likely to provide them."
Almost every person that I know who voted for Trump is as disgusted by our president's behavior and language as I am. And, just as importantly, they do not view President Trump as some kind of savior riding in on his horse to bully those who would bully us out of the public square. In fact, they do not want that. At all.
What they want is for President Trump to protect the lives of unborn children, defend the sanctity of marriage as defined by God, and provide a public voice that pushes back on the gender confusion being harmfully peddled by leftists. And my Trump-voting friends recognize that any moral stand Trump takes on these issues is a hypocritical stand. They're not stupid.
They're also not hypocrites, as Gerson claims.
Instead, they looked at what they believed were the only available options, held their nose, and voted for a man that disgusts many of them.
For the record, I disagree with my friends. I did not vote for Trump in 2016, and, unless something changes in his character, I will not be able to vote for the man in 2020. I remain #NeverTrump. Unlike my Trump-voting friends, I believe that they are overlooking another option—the choice of expressing "none of the above" with your vote.
You see, no one can simply vote against someone. As in, you can't vote for Trump merely as a vote against Hillary. By voting for Donald Trump, you are claiming a level of support for the man, something I'm not comfortable with.
Rather than choosing their own agendas, evangelicals have been pulled into a series of social and political debates started by others. Why the asinine issue of spiritually barren prayer in public schools? Because of Justice Hugo Black’s 1962 opinion rendering it unconstitutional. Why such an effort-wasting emphasis on a constitutional amendment to end abortion, which will never pass? Because in 1973 Justice Harry Blackmun located the right to abortion in the constitutional penumbra. Why the current emphasis on religious liberty? Because the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage has raised fears of coercion.
Think about what Gerson is actually saying. Condescendingly chiding evangelicals, Gerson insists that deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of life and marriage are to be set aside. In other words, evangelical concerns are not allowed a seat at the table of discourse. To him, we evangelicals are dull-minded children who mistakenly believe that society's failure to adhere to biblical morals mean that they are out to get us. We're a notch better than conspiracy theorists, in his estimation.
Well, the millions upon millions of dead children at the hands of the abortion industry would say that society is most definitely out to get them—if they were given a voice, that is. I know of a few Christian bakers who could help Gerson define "coercion." At the moment, Miracle Hill, one of the largest foster care agencies in South Carolina, is in a legal battle for its life over its Christian identity. And the list goes on and on.
Gerson also fails to account for how deeply evangelicals believe in these issues. Abortion and same-sex marriage are not throwaway policy positions. Both are deeply rooted in what we believe the Bible teaches about the sanctity of life and the purpose for marriage (see Ephesians 5:31-32). To ask evangelicals to set aside our beliefs about either issue is insulting and reveals that Gerson's morals are shaped more by society and less by the Bible.
In conclusion, while I too am saddened by evangelicals' seeming wholesale and uncritical support of a man like Donald Trump, it's disingenuous to claim that the support is in any way monolithic. Likewise, insisting that evangelicals lay aside their deeply held beliefs is patronizing and reveals a lack of understanding of what drives those beliefs.
Gerson's essays will accomplish the exact opposite of his purpose. He is only giving credence to evangelicals' belief that broader society is unwilling to allow them a public voice. In fact, it's essays like Gerson's that will possibly cause me to change my mind and vote for Donald Trump in 2020.
Trump isn’t perfect. He’s human but he did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs and that’s all that counts. :)
The author thinks that we, as Christians, should turn the other cheek when the godless liberals slap us to the ground and sneer at our religion.
No, and, as Peter told Simon Magus, they can go to hell.
“Having spent the first two decades of his adult life as a theatre artist throughout the Southeast, John now lives in the DC area with his wife and two kids. Besides writing, he works on the staff at his church. Prior to writing for PJ Media, he was a columnist for No Depression.”
Sure thing. My go to guy when I want hard hitting analysis. /s
I voted for POTUS not pastor or savior
“Unlike my Trump-voting friends, I believe that they are overlooking another option—the choice of expressing “none of the above” with your vote.”
“You see, no one can simply vote against someone. As in, you can’t vote for Trump merely as a vote against Hillary. By voting for Donald Trump, you are claiming a level of support for the man, something I’m not comfortable with.”
More B.S. and not so different from the B.S. of Gerson.
I did not vote for ANYONE for President because I thought he was morally fit to lead a church. I don’t expect a President to have much to do with any church other than to have policies and laws that respect the legal rights of churches and the constitutional rights of religious freedom, including religious freedom in the workplace and with your business. The only directly moral requirement I have on a President is that he agrees with policies and judgments that respect the right to life of the infant in the womb.
Those things concern me far above a President’s personal peccadilloes and on those grounds I would, and believe any “evangelical” should prefer Trump over any Marxist/Progressive who appears to be a moral saint.
And no, I don’t think a “none of the above” stance, between a Donald Trump or a Marxist/Progressive moral saint, is a morally, theologically “better vote”. It is nothing other than an acceptance of horribly bad government just because its president is “without sin”.
Additionally the “anyone but Hillary vote” is precisely a vote that puts the purposes of government, not your church, as the priority purpose in who you want in government. Trump wins on policy, and they have been policies that many people of faith have been wanting - regardless of Trumps personal sins.
What are all these articles “from the right” calling Trump supporters out for Trump’s “sins” attempting to do? They are attempting to divide the support for Trump on so called “moral” conditions and ignoring that the purpose of government is NOT to be the church or the religion, but to make the best government policies. On that Trump stands far ahead of any Marxist/Progressive/Liberal president in my lifetime - even with his personal peccadilloes.
What choices doe a rational Christian have? Support Trump or “never” him?
When and if we get to Heaven, and we have to account for trying to build a bit of His kingdom on earth should we say we stayed silent and/or condemned Trump and let the Democrats affect the culture? Or say we supported Trump while trying to influence him and the culture toward a nation under God again?
I came back to read the comments in this thread and am greatly encouraged by all the right-thinking, clear-thinking folks we have on FR!
I voted for POTUS not pastor or savior
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.