Robert Meyer
Evangelicals support Trump platform in spite of his immoral behavior
By Robert Meyer
Probably one of the most frequent questions asked of Christians these days, is how they can continue to support Donald Trump in spite of his past moral failings. A prominent Christian pastor, John Salvatore argues the point better than I could ever hope to.
"I'm an evangelical and I support Donald Trump despite his marital infidelity. Let me tell you why.
Unlike some Trump supporters, I will not dismiss, justify or treat lightly his extra marital affairs. Sin is sin, and this form of sin is grievous indeed, damaging the souls that commit it, while bringing harm upon their families. Make no mistake, we reap what we sow. God will judge adulterers!
And yet, forgive my cynicism, when I hear important voices on the left, people who didn't much care, when Clinton was doing the same thing in spades have suddenly become bible thumping moralists arguing that Trump's philandering makes him unfit to be president. They insist that evangelicals like myself have only two options. Either we reject Trump and join the resistance or continue to approve of everything he does, thus compromise our moral authority.
Well, thanks for the advice, but no thanks.
Clearly, this is a false choice, politically motivated to weaken Trump or shame evangelicals. Morally conscience evangelicals like myself have chosen a third and better option. We have denounced Trump's immoral behavior, while we continue to support specific policies of his presidency. We contend that even with his known failures and shortcomings, a Trump presidency (or any republican presidency for that matter) is still a bulwark against the corrupting moral influences of the leftist agenda on the social order. .."
As I think of the current state of affairs, I consider John Chapter 8 and the woman caught in adultery. When the Pharisees presented the woman to Jesus, He never said the woman was innocent, but recognized the Pharisees were using a Kangaroo trial (many expositors of this passage emphasize this by quickly pointing out the man participating in the adultery is never mentioned and evidently not present) as a means to entrap Him, and weren't really concerned about righteous standards at all.
The same is true of liberals who try to convince Christians to abandon Trump over his past moral failings. It's not that Trump is anything like Jesus, but that the liberals play a role similar to the Pharisees. Not only were they dismissive of the accusations against Bill Clinton during his presidency, but they have perpetually ridiculed the whole paradigm of family values, in an effort to destroy and nullify the standard, even more so than the individual who can't live up to them.
I heard numerous justifications from them. "Clinton is the president not a preacher," "What someone does privately is their own business and does not impact job performance," "We need to move on from this distraction," " It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Network news outlets began creating a new style of poll, dividing between Clinton's job performance and personal conduct. They also reminded us that sexual scandals were commonplace in the European political theater, and Americans fretting over the issue was attributed to their lacking sophistication. The defense of Clinton in the 1990's has come home to roost. They complain about Trump's marital infidelity, yet out of the other side of their mouths they lampoon Mike Pence for his personal policy of not meeting with a woman alone, other than his wife. They decry Trump's infidelity, yet celebrate the testimony of the woman involved, never disapproving of her means of employment. The blatant hypocrisy and sudden emphasis on morality is a symptom of desperate flailing.
One individual actually told me that a sexual impropriety committed by a conservative is worse than one committed by a liberal, because the conservative violated their own normative standard of "family values," while liberals had no equivalent plank in their ideological platform.
Saul Alinski, in his manifesto, Rules For Radicals, voiced the idea that the opponent or enemy must always be required to live up to his own standard, without the accusers themselves taking an open position that they can be held accountable to. How convenient.
It is claimed that the exploits of Harvey Weinstein were known for years, but were suddenly revealed and condemned to leverage outrage against Trump's past indiscretions. If such were true, would it be a surprise?
Several years ago, many Christians wrote in "Jesus Christ" as a right-in vote on the presidential ballot, presumably because neither candidate met their vision of the appropriate candidate. There are a few problems with that approach. First of all, Jesus was not making himself available for the position immediately, even if he were nominated by a write in vote.
Secondly, no candidate, regardless of how apparently pious, can match the standards of Christ, therefore the ideal candidate is always elusive. It offers the impression that the Christian is always forbidden to choose what he deems as the lesser of evils.
Thirdly, it results in the liberal winning the election, rather than Jesus.
Many secularists will mock the sentiments of Christians who suggest that Trump was "Chosen by God," countering that if such is the case, the same God must have chosen Obama, since he was president for eight years. But the joke here is actually on the secularist unfamiliar with scriptural history. While it is true that Christians are more prone to say things about God's providence when they like the outcome, the biblically literate observer knows the OT is laden with examples of bad leaders who ruled at least with God's permissive willingness, sometimes as a punishment for national disobedience. But sometimes, even pagan rulers accomplished good things when influenced by godly counselors such as Daniel.
As Proverbs 29:2 records "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
The thing I find most egregious, is that the same media which celebrated Trump's flamboyant lifestyle decades ago as "The Donald," is now trying to destroy his presidency for the same activities that they once glorified. That's far worst then any hypocrisy countenanced by an evangelical Christian supporting a corrupt man implementing a laudable platform.
The bottom line is simple. The inherent impropriety that issues from the implementation of the liberal agenda far exceeds the moral failings of the man currently serving as president. The political era is over whereby you can hand your resident Christian a pistol, ask him to shoot himself in the foot, then walk away laughing about his gullibility.
© Robert Meyer
April 1, 2018
Probably one of the most frequent questions asked of Christians these days, is how they can continue to support Donald Trump in spite of his past moral failings. A prominent Christian pastor, John Salvatore argues the point better than I could ever hope to.
"I'm an evangelical and I support Donald Trump despite his marital infidelity. Let me tell you why.
Unlike some Trump supporters, I will not dismiss, justify or treat lightly his extra marital affairs. Sin is sin, and this form of sin is grievous indeed, damaging the souls that commit it, while bringing harm upon their families. Make no mistake, we reap what we sow. God will judge adulterers!
And yet, forgive my cynicism, when I hear important voices on the left, people who didn't much care, when Clinton was doing the same thing in spades have suddenly become bible thumping moralists arguing that Trump's philandering makes him unfit to be president. They insist that evangelicals like myself have only two options. Either we reject Trump and join the resistance or continue to approve of everything he does, thus compromise our moral authority.
Well, thanks for the advice, but no thanks.
Clearly, this is a false choice, politically motivated to weaken Trump or shame evangelicals. Morally conscience evangelicals like myself have chosen a third and better option. We have denounced Trump's immoral behavior, while we continue to support specific policies of his presidency. We contend that even with his known failures and shortcomings, a Trump presidency (or any republican presidency for that matter) is still a bulwark against the corrupting moral influences of the leftist agenda on the social order. .."
As I think of the current state of affairs, I consider John Chapter 8 and the woman caught in adultery. When the Pharisees presented the woman to Jesus, He never said the woman was innocent, but recognized the Pharisees were using a Kangaroo trial (many expositors of this passage emphasize this by quickly pointing out the man participating in the adultery is never mentioned and evidently not present) as a means to entrap Him, and weren't really concerned about righteous standards at all.
The same is true of liberals who try to convince Christians to abandon Trump over his past moral failings. It's not that Trump is anything like Jesus, but that the liberals play a role similar to the Pharisees. Not only were they dismissive of the accusations against Bill Clinton during his presidency, but they have perpetually ridiculed the whole paradigm of family values, in an effort to destroy and nullify the standard, even more so than the individual who can't live up to them.
I heard numerous justifications from them. "Clinton is the president not a preacher," "What someone does privately is their own business and does not impact job performance," "We need to move on from this distraction," " It's all a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Network news outlets began creating a new style of poll, dividing between Clinton's job performance and personal conduct. They also reminded us that sexual scandals were commonplace in the European political theater, and Americans fretting over the issue was attributed to their lacking sophistication. The defense of Clinton in the 1990's has come home to roost. They complain about Trump's marital infidelity, yet out of the other side of their mouths they lampoon Mike Pence for his personal policy of not meeting with a woman alone, other than his wife. They decry Trump's infidelity, yet celebrate the testimony of the woman involved, never disapproving of her means of employment. The blatant hypocrisy and sudden emphasis on morality is a symptom of desperate flailing.
One individual actually told me that a sexual impropriety committed by a conservative is worse than one committed by a liberal, because the conservative violated their own normative standard of "family values," while liberals had no equivalent plank in their ideological platform.
Saul Alinski, in his manifesto, Rules For Radicals, voiced the idea that the opponent or enemy must always be required to live up to his own standard, without the accusers themselves taking an open position that they can be held accountable to. How convenient.
It is claimed that the exploits of Harvey Weinstein were known for years, but were suddenly revealed and condemned to leverage outrage against Trump's past indiscretions. If such were true, would it be a surprise?
Several years ago, many Christians wrote in "Jesus Christ" as a right-in vote on the presidential ballot, presumably because neither candidate met their vision of the appropriate candidate. There are a few problems with that approach. First of all, Jesus was not making himself available for the position immediately, even if he were nominated by a write in vote.
Secondly, no candidate, regardless of how apparently pious, can match the standards of Christ, therefore the ideal candidate is always elusive. It offers the impression that the Christian is always forbidden to choose what he deems as the lesser of evils.
Thirdly, it results in the liberal winning the election, rather than Jesus.
Many secularists will mock the sentiments of Christians who suggest that Trump was "Chosen by God," countering that if such is the case, the same God must have chosen Obama, since he was president for eight years. But the joke here is actually on the secularist unfamiliar with scriptural history. While it is true that Christians are more prone to say things about God's providence when they like the outcome, the biblically literate observer knows the OT is laden with examples of bad leaders who ruled at least with God's permissive willingness, sometimes as a punishment for national disobedience. But sometimes, even pagan rulers accomplished good things when influenced by godly counselors such as Daniel.
As Proverbs 29:2 records "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
The thing I find most egregious, is that the same media which celebrated Trump's flamboyant lifestyle decades ago as "The Donald," is now trying to destroy his presidency for the same activities that they once glorified. That's far worst then any hypocrisy countenanced by an evangelical Christian supporting a corrupt man implementing a laudable platform.
The bottom line is simple. The inherent impropriety that issues from the implementation of the liberal agenda far exceeds the moral failings of the man currently serving as president. The political era is over whereby you can hand your resident Christian a pistol, ask him to shoot himself in the foot, then walk away laughing about his gullibility.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
