John also publicly criticized Herod Antipas, the ruler of Galilee, for marrying Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for many other wrongs he had done.
-Luke 3:19, NLT
Wayne Grudem, a prominent evangelical theologian, recently penned a piece endorsing Donald Trump for President. It is entitled “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” (click on title for link to article).
I wish this was a joke. It is not.
To save you the trouble of reading the article, I will briefly summarize the thrust of it:
Essentially, Grudem argues that Trump may be a flawed candidate but is better than putting Clinton in office. He will move our evangelical agenda forward better than Hillary.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time…
But I digress.
Grudem makes this argument with full acknowledgement and awareness of Trump’s history of marital infidelity. After naming a few Trump flaws that Grudem considers real flaws (as opposed to mere “trumped-up” ones), he writes:
He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.
Such a stance disgusts me.
I simply do not get it.
How can you argue–as a Christian leader and prominent theologian–that marital infidelities–i.e. more than one!–coupled with a total disregard for the need to repent of said infidelities to God is anything but morally disqualifying?!
Further, the argument breaks down about Trump being a better option when you consider how easily he flip-flops on his positions. Grudem addresses this concern about Trump not keeping his promises in office by stating:
My reply is that we can never know the future conduct of any human being with 100% certainty, but in making an ethical decision like this one, we should base the decision on the most likely results. In this case, the most likely result is that Trump will do most or all of what he has said.
Come on! Really?! That’s your assessment?!
Psychology 101 teaches us that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. That is the basis for much screening regarding suicide risk as I have been taught.
Trump has violated more than one of his marriages via infidelity. So, he has a history of repeated violations of the most sacred of human vows–i.e. marriage vows regarding fidelity.
So, the “most likely results” based on that knowledge is that Trump will break his promises if it suits him while in office just as he has done according to his marriage history. To argue otherwise is dangerously naive and foolish!
As to the charge that Trump is merely flawed like all humans, I have issues with that line of reasoning as well. It is one thing to commit adultery and repent as King David did. It is another to be remorselessly unfaithful as Trump is and has been–i.e. seeing no need to ask for God’s forgiveness on such matters.
King David was flawed. Trump is remorselessly wicked and not very unlike Herod Antipas was in John the Baptist’s day. The Christian response is to rebuff such wickedness and not reward such a moral reprobate with more power or a “Christian” endorsement!
Finally, I feel very strongly about this matter not because I endorse the other major party candidate. For what it’s worth, I don’t. I feel strongly about this matter as I have issues with any Christian leader endorsing and promoting a political leader who is a remorseless cheater. Big issues!!!
Such an endorsement amounts to a betrayal of faithful spouses and the victims of cheaters in general.
Such an endorsement dishonors marriage, which is in direct opposition of our biblical mandate to do otherwise (see Hebrews 13:4).
Such an endorsement tells me that this Christian leader does not take marital infidelity (and all the other sins that come with it) seriously–i.e. at least not even enough to withhold an endorsement.
I am sickened by Wayne Grudem’s endorsement. It feels like a sellout. And it is yet another glaring example of how evangelical leaders still do not take marital infidelity seriously.
The comparison to Herod Antipas is apt. Besides the adultery, he was erratic and prone to rash decisions as well
Please please please consider that when it comes right down to it there is one issue that is more important than anything else: abortion. Trump’s disgustingly proud and blatantly unrepentant nature make me loathe to vote for him, but I will gladly put him in the Oval Office in return for a pro-life Supreme Court justice and policies. Now I’m not arguing that voters should overlook or tolerate his adultery. It’s never a victimless crime and to be accepting of such abuse would be a further betrayal to the spouses and families that have been wounded so deeply by it. Yet I would personally trade my horrible trauma of the last few years a thousand times over if I could save the innocent life of just one baby. In a way, voting for a remorseless cheater feels like I’m doing just that. But I’m grateful to God that in His provision He has allowed us an alternative to Clinton, if for no other reason than the chance to help protect the sanctity of life. Perhaps we will have better choices in the next election cycle. In the meanwhile, let us all pray for our nation, our people, and our leaders to humble their hearts and seek God’s favor.
Amen!!
My point here is not to engage in the abortion debates. I believe we all–as Chrsitians–need to support and respect all human life including the unborn, single mothers, the impoverished, the aged, as well as those who have to go to war. Even on the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice lines, I have issues with Trump. Trump says he will be Pro-Life (as far as abortion issues are concerned), yet he has been publicly and decidedly Pro-Choice in the not too distant past. The point of remembering that he is a remorseless cheater is to remind all that promises are a fluid thing for him, and his Pro-Life promises are included in that fluid matter.
Yes. Truth be told, I often have a difficult time with positions of both parties. I do not like the pro-choice position of the democratic candidiate nor do I like Trump’s wanting to ban all muslims. I am also not fond of the recent willingness to prevent people with pre-existing conditions from having healthcare. If an unbeliever dies because of lack of heathcare, that person is in a worse position than an unborn baby who would likely go to heaven. Personally, I feel like I should not have to choose between two platforms, with which I have moral disagreements. Ideally, babies, children and adults would all continue to experience life and be saved.