In Theory: Is Trump a ‘temptation’ for the Christian right?

A recent opinion piece in the Washington Post presents an argument for the religious right to steer clear of presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

To Michael Gerson, the choice to support Trump represents a “long-term temptation” for conservative Christians.

“The emperor, or king, or president offers to further the mission of the church,” he writes. “The church, in turn, provides legitimacy to power.”

Gerson writes that it is “unexpected for evangelicals to endorse a political figure who has engaged in creepy sex talk on the radio, boasted about his extramarital affairs, made a fortune from gambling and bragged about his endowment on national television.”

Gerson said given that the GOP frontrunner has “fed ethnic tension for political gain,” as well as advocated for war crimes and religious discrimination, evangelical Christians risk their reputation and public character.

“In legitimizing the presumptive Republican nominee, evangelicals are not merely accepting who he is; they are changing who they are,” Gerson said.

Q: Do Christian conservatives, and conservative voters of any religious group, risk anything by supporting Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency? Should religious voters cast their ballots based more on their moral convictions or their political pragmatism?

Religious voters, of any path, risk being true to their moral conscience when they enter into relationships with “political pragmatists.”

The problem is that the political world in its quest for legitimacy has courted and seduced the religious with false promises of trust and respect. This is best illustrated in the cliché “politics makes strange bedfellows.” The “strange bedfellows” concept both smacks of a promiscuous sexual relationship, definitely not one of a morally sound nature, and a homosexual sleeping arrangement, once again not of ‘traditional’ religious approval.

In other words, when religious people slumber with political pragmatists, they will awaken to skulk in shame as hypocrites to their own values.

Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank

--

I believe it is important for Christian conservatives who publicly support Trump to state their reasons for doing so, even if the explanation is that they are voting for him as the “lesser of two evils.”

MORE: Read previous In Theory discussions>>

Apart from some form of caveat, unqualified support for Trump would naturally appear to be an endorsement of his outrageous public behavior and past moral indiscretions. This is the risk in publicly backing a candidate for office on the part of any church or public Christian figure.

We tie our reputations and credibility, and those of Christ, with the politician by supporting them. Their failures or foolishness become ours, too, in the public perception.

It’s my understanding that Billy Graham later regretted endorsing Richard Nixon for office. In January, 2011, Rev. Graham told Christianity Today that he wished he hadn’t been so political during parts of his career.

Regarding convictions versus pragmatism, convictions are pragmatic by nature. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom says the book of Proverbs, and wisdom is real life and practical. Convictions guide our daily behavior, otherwise they wouldn’t really be convictions, would they? To value “pragmatism” over our moral convictions is to say that our convictions don’t really work in real life. If we claim the Bible and the Christian faith as our convictions then we should vote for the idea or candidate that most closely follows them.

This year’s presidential choice will be a difficult one for many believers, as both prominent candidates seem to be deeply flawed. But let’s look at one positive result of this dilemma: It should make us long for the return of Jesus Christ the King of Kings even more. And that’s a good thing.

Jon Barta
Burbank

--

Religious voters should always vote their morals over political pragmatism, and that goes for all religious voters, not only the evangelical conservatives.

I have said as much from the pulpit, without, of course, endangering our tax-exempt status. But my point is, if you are a believer, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, whatever, how can you not bring your faith to bear on all things, including those for whom you vote?

True, sometimes in the presidential race we hear that we don’t have much of a choice — not only in 2016, but in past elections as well.

Still, the authentic believer has to consider prayerfully his or her vote. Maybe in some years the choice is the lesser of two evils, but believers, in my opinion, should take their responsibility as voters seriously.

I believe we have been given this wonderful country of America as a gift from God (What’s “America, the Beautiful” say? “America, America, God shed his grace on thee”), and it is our responsibility to keep and improve this gift in every way we can. And sometimes our responsibility is not to vote the way we always have.

Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada

--

Voting is our only chance to choose representatives of our interests in government. I believe that voters seek as best they can to balance their beliefs and convictions with political practicalities as they see them and vote accordingly. Puzzling to me in this election are the votes for a candidate whose principles contradict the voters’ actual interests, illustrated by working- and middle-class support of Trump, who has amply demonstrated his disinterest in and lack of suitability for pragmatic governing to boot.

I am not clear though on how a vote for Trump by a religious person can be said to pose a risk, which to me implies a level of uncertainty. His attributes, experience and beliefs are on full view and have been his entire life. Trump has hidden nothing (other than his tax returns) and if the man has any religion other than self-promotion and trying to make money, I am missing it.

It is also a sure thing, not a risk, that voting for this Republican presidential candidate, certainly here in California and in many other states as well, will be a wasted vote. Conservative Christians may want to take a serious look in the fall at an unobservant Jew whose moral and political principles have rarely wavered or, the more likely option, a trailblazing, Christian woman who has proven herself to be, if not perfect, at least clearly competent.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

--

There are risks to voting for any candidate. Election-year rhetoric is often deceptive, and even when it is not, events can force the most sincere president to violate campaign promises.

But conservative Christians have been living — and voting — in a secular world for a long time. They understand quite well that politics is a “messy business” that sometimes forces them to find the best compromise between their religious ideals and the available candidates. This appears to be one of those times.

In my view the author, Michael Gerson, it is more than a little condescending when he implies that Christians don’t understand the choice before them — and that their souls will be in peril if they make a pragmatic choice about who will best represent their interests and the needs of the nation.

Before going further, I should say that the LDS church remains strictly neutral in partisan elections and hasn’t addressed this particular issue, so these thoughts are mine alone. (The church did, however, issue a statement in support of religious pluralism the day after Donald Trump proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration.)

Gerson looks to immigration and other issues for evidence that Donald Trump lacks certain fundamental virtues and therefore doesn’t deserve the Christian right’s support. But he fails to assess whether or not other candidates’ policy positions offer a better option for Christians.

I don’t know how Gerson defines “evangelical Christians,” but he gives them an especially tough time. He says they know nothing of politics, have no theological framework for political involvement and have stopped serving their faith. I think his assessment is wrong. But even if he were right, his approach is odd given that he apparently wants to bring them around to his point of view.

My guess is that the political outlooks of evangelicals and other conservative Christian voters are more complex and less monolithic than the author thinks. A Barna Group survey of registered evangelical voters found that 67 percent viewed Trump unfavorably, compared with an 81 percent negative rating for Hillary Clinton. Indeed, some Christian leaders, including evangelicals, have called on their communities to reject Trump.

This suggests that conservative Christians are doing what their faith requires: they are looking closely at both candidates and will carefully assess who is best qualified to lead our nation.

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta