Of the three reasons I’m suggesting why evangelicals may have chosen to vote for Donald Trump in 2016, the following may be the most puzzling. Yet, it is at once the most understandable. Again, why did some evangelicals vote for Trump?
Conviction. While some evangelicals voted for Trump simply to vote against Clinton, holding their noses, others voted for him because they believed him to be the best candidate for the job, perhaps even God’s man. Some have drawn an analogy from Israel’s history. About 537 BCE, the Persian king Cyrus allowed the exiled Jews in Babylon to return home and rebuild the temple destroyed seventy years before. Since the return from exile had been prophesied, the pagan king was regarded as an instrument for accomplishing God’s will. In the same way, Donald Trump—an unbeliever in this scenario—becomes a Cyrus-like figure who unwittingly accomplishes God’s will. Perhaps this explains why some evangelical leaders (Franklin Graham and Eric Metaxas, for example) insist those who oppose Trump are demonic, in league with Satan.
Other evangelicals, however, believe Trump is a Christian, albeit a “baby Christian” who is apt to take missteps in his daily life. He is still learning what it means to be a follower of Christ. He needs the counsel of wiser Christians and the prayers of all Christians.
The Christian tradition speaks of “justification” and “sanctification.” The former speaks of the new status one has upon trusting Christ. Justified believers are forgiven and have entered a new relationship with God, a relationship in which God is known as a Father rather than as a Judge. If justification speaks of God’s work at the beginning of the Christian’s pilgrimage, sanctification speaks of God’s work in the Christian’s ongoing pilgrimage. Although not all Christians agree on the dynamics of sanctification, most believe God’s goal is to produce Christians whose attitudes and lives more perfectly mirror the character of Christ. My own tradition reminds us: though a believer becomes a saint in an instant (justification), it takes time to become saintly (sanctification). If Trump is on the initial steps of his pilgrimage, we shouldn’t expect him to be a Jimmy Carter. But shouldn’t we expect to eventually see a new Donald Trump?
We all need God’s grace. C. S. Lewis, like all mature Christians, knew “… breaking the power sin and embracing the power of good … require the grace of God.” (McGrath, If I Had Lunch with C. S. Lewis). We should all be grateful God is so gracious.
But recognizing we all need God’s grace and that new believers, indeed all believers, may fail to exhibit Christlike character does not mean we should ignore those failures (or celebrate them). A new believer might express racist attitudes in words and actions, in part, out of sheer habit. Any pastor worthy of the title will balance patience and correction, counseling in a way that avoids heaping shame on the neophyte while challenging the tyro to demonstrate Christ’s transforming power, power that reshapes our most ingrained thinking. Such reshaped thinking recognizes all are valuable to God and, thus, all should be valuable to us. Of course, those with a pastoral role in Trump’s life know he is resistant to correction and seemingly unacquainted with shame. They know any attempt to correct and challenge him will usually mobilize his vengeful digits.
In addition to insisting Trump is a believer, Franklin Graham suggests the president’s economic policies have benefited the church. A robust economy means tithers (those who give at least 10% of either their gross or net income) are able to give more, and more churches may be built. On the whole, that perception seems correct. However, only 10-25% of members in the average congregation are tithers, and older church members are more likely to be tithers than younger church members. Most new churches are built (or planted) in communities to reach young families; new churches funded by the generosity of older members of established congregations. According to a Pew Research survey, almost 60% of voters under the age of twenty-nine supported Clinton in the 2016 election. Clinton’s support among those between thirty and forty-nine was just over 50%. As it happens, these age-groups are also less likely to attend church, making them the targets of church-planting activities. Now, if this group already has a bias against Trump, already has been unimpressed with or indifferent to the church’s message, how will the conspicuous support given to Trump by some evangelical leaders make that message more palatable?
Generally, today’s younger Americans are less tolerant of racism than previous generations (this, however, does not require racism to be age-related). Again, how will a perceived evangelical endorsement of a seemingly racist president be received by those whom the new churches are attempting to reach?
Put simply, a Trump presidency probably shouldn’t be made a key to your neighborhood evangelistic outreach.
Actually, it doesn’t matter if Donald Trump is a true believer or not (well, it does, but hang with me). Trump’s words and actions do not benefit the cause of Christ. It would be best if those so prominent in evangelicalism were to take a step back and say, “We will pray for the president, we will counsel the president, but we will not be myopic cheerleaders.”
Billy Graham—who, until his death in 2018, met every president since 1947—came to believe he had been guilty of “crossing the line” in his relationships with these powerful men, allowing himself to be too uncritical, failing to acknowledge their evident flaws. We can only guess what the elder Graham would say about his son’s support of Trump. Moreover, in his final years, Graham seemed less ready to echo conservative shibboleths—he questioned the justice of the death penalty, for example—and came to see the church needs both evangelists and prophets.
As a man, Donald Trump needs to hear the evangelists’ message about salvation, their call to repentance and humble trust; as the leader of a nation like the United States, he should heed to prophets who challenge his arrogance and insensitivity. Such prophets would tell the president that making America great again cannot mean going back to a time that never was, nor to a time the poor were left to fend for themselves, and certainly not to a time when racial and gender injustice were accepted norms. Such prophets would tell him that only by being better than it was can America be great. I have little hope he will hear them.
But whether he heeds their words or not, whether he tweets his outrage at their temerity or not, the evangelists must continue to plead, the prophets must continue to protest.
This November, American voters will once again face a choice. Most likely that choice will be between Donald Trump (the likelihood of his party abandoning a winner being small) and Joe Biden (Kanye West’s run for the office being unlikely to succeed, despite the appeal of having a “born again” Christian in the White House, with Kim Kardashian as first lady).
Evangelical voters especially must still their minds as they weigh the options. Though both candidates will likely depend on fear to persuade voters to choose them, evangelical voters—all voters, in fact—must not be motivated by fear. Though both candidates will likely demonize their opponent and his supporters, evangelical voters—all voters, in fact—should not be motivated by hate.
For the past quarter-century at least, some evangelical voters have looked to Washington to provide what might be termed as the salvation of the nation, when the nation will not only be great again but “Christian” again. I’ve long believed using that adjective, “Christian," to describe the nation has always been misleading, true at first glance, perhaps, but ultimately illusory. At best, the nation had a thin veneer of Christianity; scratch that veneer and a secular nation is revealed. Perhaps being cooped up by the Great Isolation has made me cynical, but I think most of us will admit Christians have had some bad press the past few months. Some was deserved, some undeserved.
Evangelicals may have had many reasons to vote for Donald Trump, but surely the worst reason was the dream he would bring greater Christian influence to bear on the nation. Perhaps, it’s time to realize the lives of individual Christians who are filled with love for others offer the greatest hope for the changes our nation needs.
When evangelicals go to the polls this November their choices should be directed by careful thought, even if that thoughtful choice is to vote for a flawed candidate (there won’t be any other), even if that thoughtful choice is to vote for a so-called third-party candidate, thus sending a message to both parties that it’s time for a change; and, perhaps, even if that thoughtful choice is to “take a fast from politics.”
