Michael Gerson Is Mostly Right about Evangelicals and Trump; But what he's wrong about is important

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.

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.

I do not always like some of president Trump’s behavior. What this author fails to be able to comprehend in his self-righteousness is that not supporting Trump essentially supports worse.

You can not - unless you are a completely delusional lunatic even argue that whatever President Trump’s moral failings The PIAPS were worse. In fact, given the obvious, egregious, intentional sin and advocacy of sin propounded by The PIAPS to fail to cast your vote for the ONLY candidate that had any chance of keeping her from power for a moral reason is the same as the Pharisees standing on the corner and praying out loud, announcing to the world how pious they were.

It like saying is that because Hezekiah wasn’t perfect you’d he’d rather have Ahab! What a fool. What an evil thing to desire!

Would this man have refused to vote for King David because he was an adulterer? Would he have withheld his approval of David’s sons for having not three but three hundred wives and 700 concubines? Yet the Bible says both of these men, with moral failings as great as any of Trumps were chosen by God.

Would he have, as the Sadducees and Pharisees did condemn Jesus for having a meal with sinners? Is he more righteous than our Lord?

Apparently, he believes he is. That is the argument he is making.

I doubt he will ever see this but I am calling on this recalcitrant sinner to soften his heart and repent of his self-righteousness.

As an actual evangelical Christian I follow God’s word above all else. Not some fanciful milquetoast socialist utopian version where everyone marches in lockstep with zealot shamers like this twit.

Is Trump the ideal Christian? Hell no. But then recall that none of us are worthy of heaven or could be called proper Christians as we all fall short of God. Besides - we don’t elect presidents to be our religious orthodoxy (good thing too)

So Trump has had sex with lots of women - good for him - as a male I applaud his ability to attract that many women. I also applaud his ability to respect them as individuals and giving them positions of power in his administration. I’ve yet to see one allegation of assault about him.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

As for his language - again it doesn’t bother me. I’ve heard far worse from evangelicals in the locker rooms.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Above all things, for all his foibles, for not being “god like” - Trump is enacting Gods Word in deed.

That’s all I need to know.

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.