[Trump] An invitation for Evangelicals to Debate the Merits of Supporting Trump

thank you for saying this. It’s one of the kindest things anyone can say. As a Christian, all I’d ever strive for while being in community with others is to be a person that non-Christians can respect. Not necessarily agree with, but at least respect for how I’ve conducted myself and reflected what is good about my faith.

I wish there were a better way to reclaim the Christian “brand” but that seems to be above my pay grade. Happy New Year to you and yours.

 

it’s been hard to find devote evangelicals to talk to about this. Most that do support Trump has fairly limited biblical understanding. which again i can’t fully blame them. When leaders like Jeffress make statements such as this, most of that follow the Baptists traditions don’t really challenge the thought process. Just shallow and follow what’s given to them. it’s just sad and discouraging.

I was speaking with a fellow pastor on staff at my church and he started to lament this issue. He said he can’t even call himself evangelical anymore because of how many f’ing idiot pastors that are out there saying stupid stuff like this. And how he can’t say a word of dissent in public because of his role as a pastor and not wanting to add contention and division into the public discourse. Then we both began finding ourselves wishing for more of the orthodox/Catholic Church model so someone in higher authority could just rebuke or censure fools like Jeffress.

 

dobro this is a great and interesting question. For background, I became a Christian in a charismatic church at 19. After college I went to a baptist church for a few years. Then a bible church for 8 years after that. During that time I attended a seminary that had no affiliation with a denomination but is known for its conservative theology and literal interpretation of the Bible.

Having said that, one thing I appreciate about my theological training is how solid theology keeps a Christian anchored in function. The Function of a church never changes. But the form can and always must change in order to adapt to the culture. The gospel must be communicated in ways that the next generation can understand. A strong theological base allows you to be more daring and flexible in “how you do church”.

that said, I don’t think the more casual “laid back” form of non-denominational churches is the reason for what we’re seeing in white evangelical Christianity. Rather quite the contrary. My sense is (and its just my opinion) that more conservative churches tend to yield more legalistic and rigid thinkers that can’t think much deeper because their faith isn’t challenged by culture. Much of these kinds of churches can lean more fear based and so their faith does not bend or flex easy to the culture. Hence why much of the “culture war” mentality that pits the church against culture comes from super conservative churches like the Southern Baptist denomination. Faith in Christ gets appended to specific and rigid forms that leaves it vulnerable to blending “culture” and forms (or Americanism/Democracy) with Christianity.

That isn’t to say the “looser” non-denominational churches are without fault and flaw. I would describe my own church as you described. The prototypical rock band with a jeans wearing pastor that preaches topically and not exegetically (word by word from the Bible). And I have found teaching and in depth learning about the Bible tends to be lacking with this approach. So I think most of these types of churches (like my own) might produce shallow and undisciplined faith, but not the misguided Trump supporters that you see or hear about in the media.

so in short, both “forms” are flawed in their own way. But your traditional conservative churches tend to produce the White Evangelicalism you see today that’s in bed with the Trump base. Whereas the progressive non-denominational churches probably err on the side of being more undisciplined and don’t push into accountability as much. That’s a gross generalization, but that’s the high level observation I’d make.

the key issue regardless of the approach, style or form of a church is how solid and rooted the teaching is. If you have bad teaching in either, that spells disaster in each their own way.

I remember when pastors from other churches started to come out in support of Trump. My literal first response to my executive pastor who was telling me about the arguments he was having with them was, “what? This is basic theology that’s given (or ought to be given) in seminary. How do they not understand the flawed thinking behind it all?”

I’m still asking this question to this day.

 

if I can summarize some of the main points of what you’ve laid out (to ensure that I haven’t misinterpreted your meaning):

1) given that the biblical arguments are fairly straightforward, the only reason why an Evangelical would continue to err is because they’ve sought to justify an agenda or personal prejudices that takes precedence over their actual devotion to the fundamental tenets of faith. In other words, they are more American politically, or even prejudicially, than they are Christian spiritually.

2) if those within the Christian faith observe the error among other Christians as they misapply or even weaponize the faith, it is incumbent upon those Christians within the faith who see such errors, to hold them accountable despite the risks or costs that such a confrontation might cause.

please let me know if I’ve misunderstood your points or if I missed one that’s of importance. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to articulate these points and they are well taken.

I’ll respond to those two points:

1) i think you assert that most (if not all) such Christians that support Trump (but really the agenda he is accomplishing for them) aren’t doing so ignorantly or are unaware of their misapplication of theology. Rather they’re actually just using it as “cover” to achieve a more personal agenda.

I would say there’s a spectrum. On one end, some are as you say. They’re really more politically motivated and use Christianity as a convenient excuse. On the other end, some truly believe the agenda is pleasing to God, that it’s His will, and feel that obedience in faith is congruent with their actions in the political arena. On one side are those who are intentionally manipulative. On the other are those who are well intentioned but uneducated in this manner.

so I’m saying I think there is truth in what you’re saying, but not the entirety of the Evangelicals that support Trumps agenda. There are many, in my estimation, that simply follow what their leaders teach them and what their leaders do. Which is why my anger falls mostly on the pastors and leaders of these “evangelicals”.

Jesus’ anger, as well, was demonstrated when He saw religious leaders leading God’s people astray and feigning a nearness with a God with they were anything but. In many similar ways, those leaders used their position for political gain and to achieve an agenda that wasn’t God’s.

2) I feel the burden of this one. Like deep in my soul burden.

I started this thread to keep an open mind and to see if a fellow theologian could make an argument that could make sense, a biblical argument that would take precedence over my own. My discussions with various people has only reinforced the belief that my fellow Christians have no idea what they’re talking about and what they’re doing when it comes to their reasonings for supporting Trump. Again I don’t fault them for that. That’s a leadership and educational issue. But the discussion has helped me to prepare for the dialogue better.

in the end though, I have no audience with the leaders and pastors responsible for this mess. I can’t convene a council to sit with Jeffress and the like to debate the issue. I’m in a fairly low position and don’t have the clout to call such a meeting where such a debate or rebuke could occur. And in all honesty, if one could, I doubt they would be convinced of the error in their theological thought process.

that’s partly why I posted the Christianity Today article. The Chief editor went out on a limb and did the rebuke in the public forum. He did what I wish I could do. What I wish more leaders would do. And he got hammered for it. And if I had a large enough platform, as that editor did, I’d like to think I would as well. Even if at great cost.

And I’ll tell you, what gives me great pause from just outright unloading on fellow Christian leaders in public (given that no private meeting can occur) is that there is a biblical principle that Christians ought to handle their disagreements within the church and that it grieves God when we have quarrels amongst ourselves for unbelievers to see.

I’m conflicted and unsure of how to proceed in a way that is honoring to my faith and God. As of now, my hope is that my church along with a few other like minded churches would draft a “creed” of sorts that doesn’t directly attack or rebuke these evangelical leaders, but focuses more on affirming what the Church is and what it isn’t. how we are to posture ourselves in politics and to abstain from activities of secular governing. I’m meeting with a couple pastors tomorrow to hopefully envision something like that.

Anyway, a conflict must happen. It’s just complex to find a way to do that wisely in the current cultural, political and media landscape that we’re in.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and challenging me to formulate my own better.

 

I think you fail to understand the point of the entire thread. It’s not about Trump or his policy agenda. This isn’t a political discussion on the policy issues. It’s a discussion on the Church’s participation in politics.

the phony handwringing you refer to is a struggle of a conflict within the community of Christian believers. If that’s not you, then no need to critique a conflict that doesn’t involve you. If you are a believer then I’d challenge you to argue your basis for not just supporting Trump but for engaging in the political mudslinging that is anything but Christ like.

 

I’m not entirely sure @Commodore is an evangelical. He refers to them in third person so I suspect he’s just a Trump supporter that is suggesting Evangelicals ought to due to policy agenda alignment.

unless Commodore you’d say otherwise? Or perhaps a Trump/GOP supporter first and then possibly a convenient Christian as a distant second or third?

but dobro, your point is taken. I’m finding in my discussions the lead out for many supposed evangelicals is on policy issues like abortion. But when pressed to biblically justify their support of Trump, really Christianity is just convenient cover, which for me just means there’s far less actual Christians out there than polling data suggests.