Continuing a good conversation: Trump and Evangelicals
By: Jesse Kawell
Tags: 2016 Election

I am writing this piece just hours after reading the Christianity Today opinion piece of one man, the outgoing editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, Mark Galli. I have asked Christianity Today for the opportunity to present the actual reasoning of an evangelical Christian leader rather than being spoken for by a lone writer who has never asked me, or any other evangelical leader or pastor I am aware of, why they would support the current President, Donald Trump, and I speak with hundreds of national Christian leaders each month.

I’ve carefully read Galli’s piece, and I do not see, at any point, him suggesting he speaks for all Christian leaders. In fact, it seems quite clear to me that he is speaking to Christian leaders who he knows disagree with him. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that everyone knows Christian leaders widely support President Trump. Galli is not providing a space for those voices because they already have full control of the conversation. Galli is the minority voice, and I think we all know it.

Additionally, I would like to respectfully challenge the author’s definition of morality and character within the context of first-hand observation, the social context we live in today, and by the values evangelical Christians hold closest.

I don’t believe Galli attempts to define “morality”, but rather assumes that, as Christ followers, we all operate under the same understanding. Simply put, morality is walking with God, like Christ. This comes up later.

To miss the fact that this nation was sliding down a slope to a cliff between 2008 and 2016 would be nothing less than turning a blind eye or political deafness.

Galli does not claim otherwise.

Federally funded abortion on demand was a machine raging out of control…

I’m not exactly sure how to interpret his phrasing, but abortion rates have been falling steadily since 2006, and are at the lowest levels on record. Many credit increased access to birth control (which was expanded under President Obama).

…our prisons were in desperate need of reform…

This is certainly very true. I would also add that incarceration rates are far too high.

…and a 1% GDP was the “new normal.”

I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion on morality. It seems out of place.

Socialism was on the rise and our religious liberties as citizens, business owners, and even clergy were being threatened at greater levels than any other time in modern history.

I have serious concerns about socialism being conflated with immorality, and listed alongside threats to religious liberty. That reflects a very broken view of that economic system. I am very zealous about religious liberty for all faiths (it’s the only way to allow people to honestly find and choose Christ), and as the Church has wained in its influence, America has become increasingly intolerant of all religions. This is certainly a concern I share.

Make no mistake, our nation was every bit as divided as it is now, and evangelicals felt every bit of concern and even anger at the direction our nation was being driven…

This represents a trend where Franklin accuses Galli of speaking for all evangelicals (he wasn’t), while himself trying to speak for all evangelicals (he can’t). Our nation has been divided since we chose to enslave other people (which was before the beginning), so I certainly agree with that at least.

…only Christians didn’t march in the streets and respond in physical ways like we see today. Instead, we prayed, we guarded our churches and our families and we waited for our chance to speak out at the ballot box.

I think the claim that some Christians stayed at home, protecting their own and praying while waiting, is meant to imply a good, moral choice by those people. Franklin certainly seems to be denigrating marches and activism in opposition to that passive self-defense. But our nation has a history (even pre-history) of activism paving the way of improvement. I certainly see many Christians marching against abortion every year. Could America be better off if followers of Christ were more active in society, in between election years? (Also, this is another passage that tries to speak for all Christians.)

And on November 8, 2016, we made our voices known as one of the largest voting blocks in the nation. For most who voted that day, they are stronger in their resolve now than they were then, and the polls show those numbers have even expanded exponentially since that historic day.

Again, Franklin lumps all Christians into a single bloc. I’m not sure how to parse what type of polls he mentions here (measuring resolve?), but all the poll types I can think of (favorability, satisfaction, voting commitment in 2020) across all groups of voters have been incredibly stable. I don’t know of any metric that has changed “exponentially”. The President’s favorability has remained steadily underwater.

This is not because millions of evangelicals have lost their moral compass or betrayed their beliefs or turned their backs on God. It is because they see a president who has lived up to a different kind of integrity and character in a leader by keeping his promises.

I was not aware that we had “different kinds” of integrity or moral character within our faith. I thought Christ-likeness was the one, universal standard. It’s extremely worrying to me that Franklin is implying our divisions within the Church have become so wide that we can no longer agree on what integrity and morality are.

Add to that the fact that he is the most pro-life president in modern history, and the record of Donald J. Trump’s actions speak a better testimony than 100 words or tweets spoken in haste.

As Galli clearly articulates, words cannot be disassociated from actions. In fact, the watching world links them intimately. This means that the vicious, demeaning, horrible things the President has said (casually dismissed by Franklin as “hasty words”) are now inextricably linked to “pro-life” and “conservative”. It is not “the Left” who will suffer the long term consequences of that.

In just three short years, over 200 conservative federal judges have replaced what was once a politically driven, activist judicial system changing the make-up of one of the most activist courts in our history, the ninth circuit court of appeals.

This seems to be an extraordinarily political statement about something claimed to no longer be political. Regardless, claiming that progressive (or “activist”) judges are a universally-known evil within the Church can only be described as partisan. It simply is not true.

These accomplishments make a better case for a sustained drive for justice and truth that speak every bit as strongly to the character and morality of a national leader than pious platitudes and a false bipartisanship. What we have witnessed is extraordinary leadership in the face of incredible adversity—a different kind of moral fiber, especially when 13 new federal court seats were confirmed the same day the U.S. House of Representatives was impeaching the president.

Here we have the crux of the argument: Conservative judges represent morality, regardless of any specifics of the President’s character. The President’s statements are often phrases disallowed on elementary school playgrounds, much less “pious platitudes”, but that is washed away by conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit. This certainly is a “different kind of moral fiber”. I am having trouble wrapping my mind around this kind of justification. How can judges be worth the trashing of the conservative reputation, much less the reputation of Christ? Why can’t Vice-President Pence be the one to appoint judges? Why can’t we harshly condemn the President’s words and behavior, even if we like his judges? This argument does nothing to answer those questions.

When millions of evangelicals helped elect Donald J. Trump to be the president in 2016, the vast majority of evangelicals weren’t looking for a political statesman—they were looking for a fighter—someone who saw the challenge for what it was, the fight of our lifetime.

The fight of our lifetime is winning souls back from rebellion against God. I worry Franklin is saying most Christians believe it is actually a fight against Democrats. I have known many honorable fighters. You don’t have to be a “statesman” to speak with basic levels of fairness and humility. But at least we’re now talking about “the vast majority”, which is far more accurate than “all”.

Men who never see a single day on the battlefield will never understand the bloody nature of an actual fight, and neither will the cold unaffected critic who observes from a distance and lobs in their criticism from the safety of their corner office.

This is particularly ironic given that President Trump received special dispensation to avoid fighting in Vietnam. Again, wars can be bloody without lobbing insults on Twitter from the safety of the Oval Office.

It’s a different kind of character that is found in courageous leadership, fortitude, and dogged determination. There is a deeper morality in keeping your promises AFTER you’ve been elected.

A “deeper morality” than what? Can’t one keep promises and avoid cheating on their spouses? Are we at the point where we feel we have to pick one or the other?

If you have the courage, you stand with the leader who stands for the very things you would hope a president would stand for…

Courage is standing up to a leader to correct them, not standing with them when they’re in the wrong.

…the sanctity of life, religious freedom for private citizens and business owners, conservative federal judges, standing with the nation of Israel, and a better tomorrow for those living in poverty, especially in our largest cities—the very values and policies you pray to God your president will push forward and stand on. And he has stood up for every single one. Those ARE Christian values.

Assuming you are politically conservative (which many Christians are not), these represent many good things for a President to push. But do they excuse all other behavior? At what point do you abandon a leader who does the things you want, but speaks totally counter to everything you stand for? Is there such a point?

It’s a faulty and presumptuous notion to assume that any religious leader who stands with this president has not spent hour after hour on their knees in prayer asking for God to show them where to stand and who to stand with. It’s a callous miscalculation to assume that those who are actually in the fray are not in it at the leading of the Holy Spirit or under the protection of their God.

First, I don’t see anywhere that Galli claims Trump supporters have not spent time in prayer or in search of God’s wisdom. Second (and this really grinds my gears), it’s an incredibly unfair argument to say “the Holy Spirit is leading me in this way, so if you think he’s leading you the opposite way, you must be wrong.” We know that we all (as followers of Christ) have the Spirit. We also will disagree on important things. Is the Spirit divided? Of course not! We’re human, and will all misunderstand the Spirit, or let our own opinions get in the way. You can’t use the Holy Spirit as a trump card in a disagreement with a fellow, Spirit-filled Christ-follower (I apologize deeply for the pun).

Thousands of pastors and Christian leaders stand with millions of U.S. evangelicals who stand with this president with eyes wide open and at no personal or professional gain. In fact, for many, the exact opposite happens. For those of us who are at the table with the president in a prayer and advisory role are there first, because we go where we are asked to go. And second, because we sense the hour we are in, and we are down for the fight.

Galli does not suggest that Trump supporters are seeking personal gain (though I would argue fighting, for example, for Christian rights over Muslim rights or gay rights, is seeking personal gain). He also doesn’t say their eyes are shut. He’s just saying they’re wrong about what outweighs morality. It’s that simple. Personally, I’m all for praying for and advising the President. That does not preclude believing he should be removed.

Citing the impeachment in the House of Representatives as the reason the president should resign shows the partisan nature of the article, mimicking talking points from one side of the aisle while turning a deaf ear to every single member of the other. To assume the evangelical leaders who disagree with the outcome in the House are not able to place truth above political agendas is the worst of assumptions and reveals a lack of objectivity.

Here we arrive again at points where partisanism is attacked with partisanism. As a progressive, I strongly disagreed with Galli’s assessment of the impeachment proceedings. He was very critical of the Democratic party. To call this a partisan hack job requires a cherry picked reading of the piece. Truth is incredibly important. Let’s see where we fall on truth:

For most, they see the simple and pragmatic truth: Abuse of Power isn’t a crime; it’s an opinion shared only by one side of the aisle.

So no Republicans believe abuse of power is wrong? I’m not going to get dragged into making this a partisan thing, but regardless of how the representatives voted last week, there is a wide variety of opinion within voters across parties. To say Galli must be a partisan hack to believe abuse of power is impeachable is just as presumptuous as Franklin accuses others of being.

Obstruction of Congress is what happened with every private meeting in the basement and with every witness the Republicans were never allowed to call.

Sigh. Talk about “mimicking talking points from one side of the aisle”.

Disagreeing with the outcome doesn’t prove bias or partiality, it simply means we have eyes and ears and the ability to come to our own conclusions. The same conclusions the majority of Americans have come to.

I wouldn’t expect us all to agree. And, in fact, there is no “majority of Americans” in this case: polls show we’re evenly divided on whether the President should be removed, with the majority believing only that he should be impeached.

I would like to respectfully ask Christians who stand so vehemently against this president, what is your alternative? You have witnessed the policy achievements, the economy, the tax reforms and the stance opposing abortion and everything else. As you look at the choices on the other side of the ticket, what do you see that even remotely resembles the values your faith holds dearest?

This was the paragraph that inspired me to sit down and write a response, because I think it’s a great question deserving of an answer. Ultimately, the alternative is simple. In the short term, remove President Trump and bring in President Pence. He has shown every sign that he would continue the policy goals of President Trump, but without the moral wandering. In the long term, conservative Christians can select candidates in primaries who will achieve the same goals. Progressive Christians will continue to select candidates who best fit Christ-like morality via progressive political methods. All the achievements of the past 3 years do not require Trump. There are options.

Socialism? Abortion on demand? Jailing Christian business owners? Is the valley between the two ends of the spectrum not wide?

I think it is incredibly dangerous to suggest that Christians cannot vote for Democrats. This statement has a lot of hyperbole, and it is just this sort of thing that has caused the American evangelical Church to become a partisan institution. Christians do not have to vote Republican. No; the valley is not so wide as that.

Is your disdain for the man greater than the policies and values that matter most to our faith?

Morality is a value that matters most to my faith. I do not disdain the man. I disdain the way he talks about other image bearers, the way he has treated women, and, yes, the way he as attempted to exert the power of his office for personal and corrupt purposes. Those weigh a great deal.

Or, will you sit home and not vote at all? Indifference is one of the greatest diseases of this age and the sin of silence, in one of the most critical times in history, is not an act of courage but rather a flaunting of a freedom men and women died to protect.

Participation in our democracy is what keeps it running. I agree: if you are able, vote, learn, share, march, and participate every way you can!

In the end, I can only pray that people of faith who read the article written by the outgoing editor-in-chief calling for the resignation of the president will see it for what it is and what it is not.

I dislike the repeated use of “outgoing”. It’s clearly trying to suggest some deep secret. Galli is not lighting the place on fire as he’s chased out of the building. He had been planning to retire already, and this is just when impeachment happened. CT did not attempt to stop him from writing the piece. Let’s abstain from ad hominem attacks.

What it is: Just the opinion of one man and not the formal representation of any denomination, group of religious leaders, or anyone in particular with any intentionality, which is why there are no quotes and no reference to anyone other than his own opinions.

Correct. That’s why it says “Opinion” at the top of the page. And why Galli doesn’t suggest anything else.

What it is not: It is not representative of my thoughts or motives, nor the thoughts and motives of any religious leader I know or am in regular contact with every week—all across the nation.

This explains a good deal. I know many religious leaders who agree with Galli, so (unsurprisingly) Franklin is in a bit of a “pro-Trump” bubble. I hope reading Galli’s piece will open his eyes to the diversity of opinion within the Church.

Bottom line is this: Evangelical leaders and private citizens who are Christians all across this nation are stepping out of the shadows and onto the stage, off the sidelines and into the game in record numbers. Mark Galli, in his own words, also once described some of us who voted for this president when he said: “These other evangelicals often haven’t finished college, and if they have jobs (and apparently most of them don’t), they are blue collar jobs or entry level work.”

First, please understand that this Galli quote is simply referring to statistical facts of the Trump voting base, not some sort of insult as Franklin implies. Second, it’s wonderful that Christians are becoming more engaged in our democracy! I’m excited to see how we can grow if we step out of the “waiting and praying” posture that only votes every 2-4 years and begin making this country better every day!

So while the article penned as a parting shot to evangelicals who have supported Donald Trump by the outgoing editor-in-chief may represent the voice of Mark Galli, it does not represents the millions of hard working men and women of faith or the heart or character of believers who support this president. And in no way reflects the values and heart of Christianity today in these United States of America.

The article closes with one last shot at Galli’s reputation and a final attempt to group all American Christians in Franklin’s image. If you gain one thing from this conversation, I hope it’s this: There is diversity of opinion in the Church; and, yes, there are Christ-followers who think President Trump should be removed.

This wasn’t as short as I thought… Oops… 😉

Grace and peace to you beautiful people! ♥ ♥