Trump, the 2020 Presidential Election, and the Unconditional Support of the Evangelical Church

Four years ago, I listened to a thinly-veiled endorsement for Donald Trump at the end of a sermon at the church I was attending.  The pastor’s justification for his choice was that the candidate’s platform, in his opinion, outweighed the candidate’s character, no matter how marginal.  My own judgment weighed in the opposite direction, and, in spite of my dislike for a great deal of Hillary Clinton’s platform, I voted for her.  Trump was elected with a huge support from evangelicals, a great many of whom voted for him based on a single issue on his platform…..abortion.  True to his word, the President has been faithful in his support of the pro-life issue, including the nomination of two conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  But what of the rest of his accomplishments during his first term?  Has his support for the pro-life movement overshadowed the failures of his first term, and has the evangelical support for him been justified?  And should the church be involved in politics in the manner which it has been for the last four years?

      First, let’s look at the high and low spots from his first term.  As mentioned above, he was faithful in his support for the pro-life movement.  He signed a major crime-reform bill (the First Step Act) into law which was lauded on both sides of the aisle.  He (properly, in my opinion) fought unfair trade practices by applying tariffs to Chinese dumped steel and other products (I’m free trade, but also fair trade).  And he insisted that all the member NATO nations do their fair share as part of the pact.  And he did restrict air travel from China when Pelosi and other Democrats were calling him out for ostensibly being xenophobic.  I’m sure there are many other things he has accomplished during his first term, and I’m sure I’m amiss to not know or mention them.  On the other hand…

      His administration has been practically a revolving door with regards to aides, cabinet members, appointees, etc.  He has refused to be transparent with regards to his taxes.  He has cozied up to dictators and alienated long-term allies.  He nearly got us into a major conflict with Iran last January in the bombing of the Irani general Soleimani, an action that could have spiralled into an even greater regional conflict or even world war.  (Never mind whether it was justified……was it wise?)  Also, in October of last year, Trump shamelessly betrayed an ally of ours in the war against ISIS, the Kurds.  After bearing the overwhelming burden of the conflict with ISIS (over 11,000 Kurdish deaths verses approximately a dozen American deaths), Trump pulled our remaining 1000 or so troops out of Syria. The result was the  invasion of Turkish troops into Northern Syria and the displacement of more than 300,000 Kurds.  One retired 4-star general called Trump’s actions an “unsound, morally indefensible act”, and a “disgrace” to America and the soldiers who serve this country.  And then there’s his administration’s leadership in the time of covid-19.  No he didn’t cause it, yes his initial response (in restricting travel from China and Europe) was good and timely.  But since then, both his policy as well as he and his staff’s personal example have been the quintessential example of poor leadership.  In spite of the positive results of mask requirements in many other countries, Trump has yet to mandate masks universally and generally downplays the seriousness of the situation.  He and Mike Pence (Pence in the Mayo clinic no less) walk around without them, when their personal example could mean so much to the prevention of the spread of the virus, and the protection of the vulnerable in our society.  Then, of course, there is Trump’s lack of leadership in our current race-relations.  His failure to condemn the radical racist right until just recently, and his complete lack of any positive leadership with regards to black concerns about racial justice have only fueled the fire of this conflict.  Finally, there is his personal conduct and pejorative comments with regards to women, the disabled, servicemen who get captured, etc.

      My question for the church is this…..not that we shouldn’t advocate for particular candidates, but should we unconditionally support them like I see so many Christian leaders have done? I believe that in some regard, the church has sort of prostituted itself with regards to Trump, that is, offered unconditional support in return for his promise to support the pro-life agenda.  Shouldn’t the church always in a sense stand outside the ‘powers’?  That is, shouldn’t it stand ready to praise them when they act according to right and wrong, and in general govern justly; ready to criticize and condemn when they act outside of these ideals?  In the last four years I seldom hear the Trump supporters, church persons or other, offer any criticism, even when he has been obviously in the wrong.  And is the single issue of abortion the only issue for the Christian?  Elderly lives matter, black lives matter, Kurdish lives matter.  To a lesser extent, but still importantly, the environment matters, the economy matters, our educational system matters. 

But back to the abortion issue, what is the best-case scenario for a public that doesn’t want abortion restrictions?  After all, in the absence of significant punishments for an offense, even our Christian theology states that prohibitions usually only heighten the desire to transgress them.  In a democracy, what the public wants, the public eventually gets.  People need to be convinced of the evil in the act of an unjustifiable abortion.   Laws themselves won’t suffice.  And a 6-3 court majority overturning Roe v. Wade would only kick the issue back to the states……which means that this conservative majority for the court might not be nearly as decisive on the issue of abortion as has been expected!  And ultimately, if the people don’t want any tighter abortion restrictions, another party will eventually rise to power and find a way around it, like packing the court.  If elected this term, Joe Biden has refused to say he won’t pack the court.  But why shouldn’t he?  Donald Trump defended nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Court during an election cycle, on the grounds that winning an election brings with it the advantage of doing certain things.  If Biden should be elected, he has every right to justify packing the court on the same logic.

      Some of the ‘cultured despisers’ of Christianity would have it that religious people shouldn’t be involved in politics or statecraft.  But the Constitution is clear:  its prohibition is against state sponsorship of any religion, not the involvement of religious people or religious institutions in politics.  It’s just very important that we do so wisely, and advocate for the good of all, not just those issues that are central to our own concerns.  After all, God can defend us, should He so desire.  We need to defend others.