Christians and Donald Trump: Our Meeting with Him

I was asked to participate in a meeting between Donald Trump and about 35 Christian leaders Friday night in Charlotte.  There was no requirement for participants to endorse Mr. Trump. Instead, it was a chance to exchange ideas with Mr. Trump on issues especially important to the Christian community, such as life, judges, and the growing problem of the government coercing religious people to violate their religious beliefs.

Christians and Donald Trump

As he did in a similar meeting I attended in New York a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trump affirmed his commitment to protect life, appoint conservative judges vetted by the Federalist Society, and to work with Christians on religious freedom issues.  While I don’t endorse candidates, I am encouraged by Mr. Trump’s willingness and openness to personally discuss these issues and express his agreement with the positions I support.

For those Christians who think it’s wrong to meet with someone like Mr. Trump, I ask them to take off their Pharisee robes for a minute to see whom Jesus met with and ministered to.  Meeting with Mr. Trump is not only biblical, it’s an opportunity to do good. When one of the two people who will be President of the United States asks for your opinion, why wouldn’t you provide it?  It’s a dereliction of duty to not speak the truth on issues that directly affect lives and our ability to preach the Gospel and live our faith!

Mr. Trump’s team reached out to me and other Christians.  I’d meet with Mrs. Clinton if she requested my opinion (I’ve only heard crickets so far. And I doubt there are any evangelical Christians expecting her call since she wants to use the force of government to change our beliefs, and her party has demonstrated hostility to biblical Christianity for the past eight years).

For those of you who see no good choice in this presidential election, remember that you are not just voting for one person— you are actually voting for thousands of people that come along with the top of the ticket, some of whom will affect our country for generations. There are literally thousands of political appointees at several levels of government, including Supreme court judges and about 300 other judges, whom the President will appoint. Those people will attempt to make America in the image of their party platform. Those are two radically different images and two radically different futures for you and your children.

To see how radically different they are, take a look at this very helpful chart that quotes directly from the two party platforms.  It shows where the Democrats and Republicans stand on issues important to most Christians.  Given this knowledge, it is also a dereliction of duty when you fail to vote.

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
91 replies
    • Greg LaPrade says:

      Go to gotquestions.org and type in “Does God expect Christians to vote”. It shows several scriptures that support our need to get involved as Christians.
      Dr. Wayne Grudem says we most definitely need to participate in the process. He has written articles about it and I am reading a book he wrote on bible doctrine currently.
      God backed off of his plans for wrath in answer to a prayer from Moses made is one example that comes to mind. Our free will does affect change sometimes. I believe that we are to try to affect change as representatives of Christ when possible.
      Prayer is the first and most important way to do that. It should not be as a last resort. Check out reviveus2016.com. There is a mtg tmrw night on nationwide simulcast for revival at 8pm EST.

      Reply
    • Gloria says:

      All I can say is I believe God impressed on me that Trump is to America what King Cyrus was to Israel. Read Isaiah 45 paying attention to verses 4, 5, and 13. Yesterday I read vs 13, today I see where Trump said if elected he would refuse salary. What a confirmation to my hesrt.

      Reply
      • Christine Hickey says:

        Gloria, I came to the same conclusion that you did. God can use whoever he chooses to manifest His will. I believe Donald J. Trump is his choice…

        Reply
      • Greg LaPrade says:

        Gloria, I thought the same thing when I saw what God did using Daniel to get through to King Darius and other kings. I saw it acted out in a bible series dvd about Daniel and came to the same conclusion that you did.
        King Darius was not a strong Christian, but he listened to Daniel. Trump’s first meeting after he secured the nomination was with Christian pastors and leaders. Clinton’s first meeting after stealing her party’s nomination was with Planned Parenthood.

        Reply
      • Concerned American says:

        3500+ lawsuits. A lying and wretched man and he is compared to King Cyrus???

        Trump CONSISTENTLY says how much money he has made. What he does not say is that it was at the expense of others. Get 10 people that have worked for/with him to give a good report.

        I hear enough directly from Trump himself to discredit him as a leader.

        Reply
      • Jimmy Ipock says:

        If Trump loses, are you going to post on this blog that you clearly didn’t hear God speaking to you and you allowed yourself to be deceived by whatever voice is telling you this?

        Reply
    • Mr Y says:

      Look at all the flawed people God used for His purposes. Abraham, the liar and father of Israel. Jacob the deceiver and one of the father’s of Israel. Moses, the leader of Israel and unable to publicly speak (poor speaker) but the most humble man. Elijah, the impulsive prophet but walked in amazing power of God. Rahab the prostitute and Jesus came from her lineage. Sampson the womanizer and deliverer/leader of Israel. King David, the murderer, adulterer and a man with a perfect heart. Peter the fouled mouth, impulsive man turned fireball for Jesus. Paul the terrorist who became the greatest apostle and author of much of the New Testament. God can used a flawed Trump. Don’t vote for Hillary or her platform which is responsible for over 55 million babies aborted, which is nearing all that were killed during WW2.

      Reply
      • Concerned American says:

        Teach your kids not to abort their babies!

        No one is saying “go abort your babies”.

        If we follow the logic of people against gun control, abortions would still occur if illegal….

        Smh…..

        Reply
        • PG says:

          Gun control isn’t about saving lives that is a misrepresentation the law is there to prevent a government from running over it’s citizens. Yes I suppose some people like aborting their babies because they love their sex god. Why should Christians allow naturalism to be taught in schools, and the outworkings of that worldview.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            If that’s what the 2nd amendment is for then guns only belong in private “well regulated” militias, not private hands.

            Sex god? What???

            “Why should Christians allow naturalism to be taught in schools, and the outworkings of that worldview.”
            Perhaps . . . because it’s the only thing we KNOW is real?

      • Lula says:

        The people you named were children of God and all believed in Him. Trump still refuses to repent even after talking with evangelicals, and why should he? They make him believe they are the ones to forgive his sins and they tell him what he has done is no big deal anyway. Are Hillary’s sins worse than Trumps? Not according to God. I am against both and so is God, but how many times does it talk about stoning the abortionists compared to how much God talks about pride, adultery, greed, and unrepentance.

        Reply
        • Rob DeRocker says:

          Amen, Lula! I get why many Christians can’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton. But to take the next step and embrace Trump?! To me it’s one of the biggest travesties of this very sad year. And not so much a suspension of disbelief — but of belief.

          Rob

          Reply
    • Mr Y says:

      We shall all stand before Him at the judgment seat and give account of our lives. God birthed our great nation, USA. Will you vote for the party that is responsible for killing over 55 million babies through abortion or the other who is pro-life or not vote or vote….

      Reply
      • toby says:

        No. We vote for a party that that doesn’t think it can play god by usurping a woman’s free will. If god were so offended he’d put a stop to it himself . . . as he apparently did so many times in the old testament, but now is strangely absent. If you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one.

        Reply
      • Lula says:

        What party would that be? The Republican party? The one who sat on the Supreme Court during Roe V. Wade? The party that has had majority seats SINCE Roe V. Wade more than once? The party that tells us they are pro-life then does nothing for babies? That party? The ONLY party fully pro-life is the Constitution Party. Will you leave fear behind and vote for them?

        Reply
  1. And says:

    Mr. Turek, I’m so undecided concerning this election! What would you say to someone (not me but my friends) who say that Donald Trump is lying and you can’t trust anything he says and that he will do more damage than Hillary? They hold that if Hillary gains office we’ll have another unremarkable Clinton presidency with a chance to elect a truly conservative candidate after. ? ???

    Reply
    • Daniel says:

      It is important to remember that one can only go based off of the what the candidate says they will attempt to do during their candidacy. If someone tells you they are pro-life, for religious freedom, and conservative judges and then they go into office and do a 180, the blame is not on you but on the lying candidate. You need to look up the Munk debate from this past September between Newt Gingrich & Lauren Ingraham vs Robert Reich & Granholm https://youtu.be/_b_XbyMQk2c

      Reply
      • Izrael says:

        What about the person’s record? Isn’t reasonable to conclude that a man with a record of being in favor of liberal policies most of his life will continue to support those liberal policies if elected president?

        Reply
    • Greg LaPrade says:

      There are at least 3 supreme court nominations coming up the next term. She promises to continue the leftward trend of judges opposed to Christian values. I could list a hundred more reasons at least. Please watch Hillary’s America in theaters now.
      And go to reviveus2016.com for a bipartisan event coming tonight that can save our nation through prayer.

      Reply
      • Kyle says:

        You understand that supporting freedom of religion for all religions (including non-religious) is not the same as opposing Christianity right?

        Reply
        • Noelle says:

          Anything that goes against Biblical truths is opposing Christianity. Its doesn’t necessarily mean/ need to be a violent opposition. That being said I’m not going to entertain a lengthy argument via internet just as you were compelled to state your view I too- mine. Ultimately- every knee shall bow and every tongue will proclaim.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            Then you have to accept that the US Constitution is ‘opposing Christianity’ by your definition. I mean, you’re not alone in holding that view: The Constitution was derided as being an atheist document by the religious leaders of the day when it was first signed, because it failed to mention God, bar a reference to ‘the year of our Lord’, except to underline that it was a secular document.

            It’s fine for you to see the Constitution as ‘opposing Christianity’, but you should be clear in your mind that that is your view.

    • Andy Ryan says:

      Hillary is a friend to Wall Street. Businesses trust her. So yes, figure on a known quantity – a flawed moderate.
      Trump is a completely unknown quantity. He’s easily goaded, has no impulse control, can’t control his temper. As for what he would do if he had all that power, no-one really knows, but the chances of him wreaking havoc seem high. Do you really want a guy like that to have his finger on the nuclear button?

      In short, vote Hillary, not Trump.

      Reply
      • toby says:

        I can’t understand the cognitive dissonance that believers must go through to be able to vote for this guy. He’s a scheming business man, always has been. And the muck they’ve said about being genius for avoiding paying taxes? In one moment a conservative will beat their chest and proclaim their love for this country and then in the next breath say that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Without paying taxes this country would be nothing. But don’t ever suggest we cut military spending in half!

        Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            Trump has a history of criticising others for not paying taxes. “Half of Americans don’t pay income tax” he complained. He attacked Obama for not paying more tax. He attacked Facebook’s Eduardo Saverin for leaving the US to save on tax.

            Given all that, the revelations about his own tax arrangements show he’s a huge hypocrite. If you say “He’s just using the system” then you’d have to excuse everyone on welfare as ‘just using the system too’.

          • Louie says:

            What we are forgetting, is that when Trump digs the FaceBook guy (and others like him) he is pointing out their hypocrisy. This guy is a supporter of the Democratic party, which is the source of complaining that the wealthy do not pay their share. Yet, there he is, not paying. Trump has no issues with dodging taxes, unfortunately it is good business. What he does take issue with, is when someone takes issue with it, and then does it themselves. He understands the holes in the system, and perhaps that would make him more capable of coming up with ways to make taxes more reasonable? I do not have any faith in a life long politician coming up with a good solution to anything.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Trump has no issues with dodging taxes, unfortunately it is good business.”

            He does have issue with it. As I already pointed out, he claims it’s a big problem that “half of Americans don’t pay income tax”.

            “What he does take issue with, is when someone takes issue with it, and then does it themselves.”

            Right. Like when Trump takes issue with it, and then does it himself.

            If you’re saying that he has a problem with hypocrites then he’s a hypocrite twice over: One for criticising tax avoiders and then avoiding it himself, and two for criticising hypocrites and then being hypocritical himself.

            “He understands the holes in the system, and perhaps that would make him more capable of coming up with ways to make taxes more reasonable?”

            That’s like saying we should leave the fox in charge of the chicken hutch.

            These are bad arguments, Louie, and that’s why Trump is going to lose so badly in three weeks.

          • toby says:

            Whatever the standard deduction is. Conservatives are all about simplifying the tax code. I’m for eliminating all deductions, eliminate married or single, child credit, combine all taxes (city, county, state, federal, social security, and medicare) into one item on a paycheck, apply a progressive scale to social security and medicare within that, tax capital gains over $250k the same as income. Then lower the bottom four brackets to adjust for those eliminations and then raise the top three to 50%, 75%, and 85%.

          • Louie says:

            Andy: You make some fair points, but let me clear up that there are two kinds of “not paying taxes”. When Trump says he has a problem with people not paying taxes, I interpreted that as people who just simply do not do it, and break the law. The is another type of people who avoid it, but legally. Either one is an issue, but if the system allows you to avoid it, then blame the system, not the avoider.
            I believe you are correct, that Trump will lose, but it wont be because of any arguments. It will be because we have so many people on the payroll of the government, and its democrats who keep pandering to them and will drive the US into bankruptcy.

          • Toby says:

            Louie, What should we think of a man who claims to love this country, bemoans how the military needs reinforced, then find out he doesn’t pay anything into the system to support it? I think you’d call that person a freeloader.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “When Trump says he has a problem with people not paying taxes, I interpreted that as people who just simply do not do it, and break the law.”

            Then your interpretation is wrong, Louie. That’s not what he was talking about. Look it up. You can still find the tweet in question. He was talking about people who legally don’t pay income tax due to their low income. So I’m afraid your justification cuts no ice.

            Face it, he’s a massive hypocrite. According to his own logic, those guys are ‘smart’, but he said they were the problem.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “I believe you are correct, that Trump will lose, but it wont be because of any arguments”

            It’s because he’s alienated vast areas of the electorate, not least of which women. If (and when) he loses, it’s because women didn’t want to vote for him. But he also called Hispanics rapists, he said Americans of Mexican heritage can’t be trusted to do their jobs, he’s a history of attacking black people, he attacked Gold Star families. And he had awful debates that he didn’t prepare for. And he attacked his own party.

            If you want to know why he’s going to lose, any of the above would and should be enough. To blame anyone but Trump is utterly delusional.

          • Louie says:

            Andy:
            As always, you make good points, but that is not why Trump is going to lose. It is because the democrats have pandered to an audience that is growing and growing, and that is the free loaders; plus they own the media. Hats off to them for figuring out how to win elections, but it is not good for country in the long run.

          • Louie says:

            Toby:
            I could turn your question to me about Trump completely around on you, and make it about Clinton. I my opinion, they are both undeserving of the office. The only big difference maker I see, is that one candidate looks like they’ll remove more freedom from people than the other. The tax spin is not really the issue, since we could call the Clintons free loaders too, they have produced nothing. They primarily have lived off the taxes of the people their whole life! They’ve also lived off the generous donations from large corporations they appear to hate and from countries that do the things they preach against. Either candidate would be torn apart if they ran against someone deserving of the office. I feel for the people of the USA.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Louie, it IS why he’s going to lose. You can see the demographics of who is voting for him. Women were massively turned off by his attitude.

            You’re trying to get some kind of moral high ground by saying that he’s losing due to ‘freeloaders’ but it’s not borne out by the facts. Professionals prefer Hillary. It’s the less educated who are keeping Trump afloat. And that’s even aside from the fact that Trump qualifies for the label freeloader by his own definition.

          • Louie says:

            Andy:
            You must be a supreme being, knowing how everyone is voting and what their background is. Do you also live in DC to have your finger on the American political pulse so well? The uneducated are keeping Trump in the race… what MSNBC poll did that come from? You are being led by the media, like so many others. Go into the inner city of Detroit, Chicago, New York, DC (the list goes on) and take a street poll of uneducated people, and see who they are voting for if you want trustworthy results. Both of these candidates are bad; no question, but if we counted $$ in taxes paid by each over their life time, I’m pretty sure I know who’d come out ahead.

          • Andy Ryan says:

            “The uneducated are keeping Trump in the race…”

            When did I say that Trump was still in the race, Louie? 🙂

            But sure, if you want to just say all the polls are wrong and you’re going to rely on gut instinct and anecdote, then go ahead. But stand by to be surprised and disappointed and bewildered the day after the election.

        • Josh says:

          You do know we didn’t always pay taxes in this country right and we were fine taxes were put in place by the government to help with things mainly during war time we don’t think we can do without it because we have been fed that idea since birth ( death and taxes)

          Reply
      • Susan Wade says:

        Yes we do know Hillary. She will appoint 3 Supreme Court justices who will make late term abortion and federally funded abortions legal. We know she wants open borders and this nation will continue to be flooded with unvettted illegal folks, some of which are militant Muslims and criminals. Why have a country if it has no borders. We will see the continuation of the welfare state and the nation debt grow just as it has inthe last 8 years. We will see Christians pastors and business owners sued, jailed and hunted down by the IRS eTc if they preach and practice their religious convictions and do not saction gay marriage in their churches and businesses. Yes we KNOW HIllary. We will see the same terrible judgement that led to the destableization of Libya (now controlled by ISIS) and the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi. We will see her quest for money and power through deception and corrupt lawless deals continue. Yes we KNOW Hillary. And because we KNOW Hillary and where and how she will lead this nation, I cannot vote for her. Oh God have mercy on us. We are killing our babies in the womb, and selling our souls to the highest bidder. Donald Trump will not tolorayr the continued dinegrstuob of America. He will bring back jobs and will be pro business that helps us all. He will not stand for ISIS to infiltrate this nation. He will stand for us. Hillary will stand for whoever benefits her and her quest for money and power.

        Reply
        • Noelle says:

          Hillary wrote a paper in College I’m honor of a Satanist. She has HAD the opportunity to impact the USA and has done so, terribly. Not saying that I necessarily agree with ALL Trumps views. However he will be my vote. Just take a look at her REAL views in her very own emails. Wake up America.

          Reply
      • Greg LaPrade says:

        Businesses trust her? What businesses? She is an establishment baby killing warmonger that has DESTROYED the Middle East and now she promotes war with Russia after she allowed huge amounts of uranium to go to them. She is easily the most corrupt politician in American history. The recent Wikileaks email dumps are further proof of that.
        Where are you getting your information? On a tarmac from Godfather Bill himself?

        Reply
        • toby says:

          As opposed to Bush, who started a war over false pretenses? Bet you voted for him . . . twice. You don’t get to claim you care about lives, then vote for someone who will do nothing about gun violence and do nothing about suffering refugees. You all are just pro-birth, after that you really don’t care.

          Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        No, I think Trump carrying out all his threats – including to torture people ‘whether it works or not’ – is fear enough.

        Reply
        • Kyle says:

          Don’t forget going after the families of terrorists, especially in a patriarchal society where the women and children have very little or nothing to say in what the men do.

          Reply
      • Louie says:

        I agree, Nick. Trump is no saint, but the Clintons are really creepy, shady, under handed people. They’ll do all the things that Trump will and more, but you’ll never hear them say it. I think when all is said and done and secrets come out in later years, we will find that the Clintons are responsible for some pretty heinous deeds. Only my opinion of course, time will tell.

        Reply
    • Dan says:

      You know for a fact that Hillary as choice is not the right one. You take a chance with Trump but didn’t we all take a leap of faith at one point in our lives to get to where we are now?

      Reply
    • Ken Nastrom says:

      The issue is if Trump is elected God will stay America’s judgement and if Clinton is elected his judgement will fall immediately through the hands of America’s enemies.

      Reply
  2. Amy says:

    There are more than two terrible options. Evan McMullin is actually a viable candidate, in that the possibility exists to throw the election to the House (and for those unfamiliar with history, that is precisely how we ended up with Abraham Lincoln as president). There is nothing to suggest that Trump would honor any of his “pledges” to Christians. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. He is legendary in his willingness to lie and abandon things (businesses, marriages, contracts) when they no longer suit his purposes. As Christians, we are called to choose righteous leaders. It’s true there may be no “Christian” running for president, but we have no business placing a singularly vulgar man in leadership over us who is an unrepentant adulterer, former owner of an escort service, casino/strip club owner, pathological liar, and serial sexual predator. Until he “became” a Republican, he supported partial-birth abortion ( and still says Planned Parenthood “does great things”); he is for universal healthcare, and he is perfectly willing to allow men into women’s restrooms and locker rooms. He is also shockingly ignorant of world affairs and emotionally unstable and unfit to hold office.

    Reply
    • Stephen J. Ardent says:

      And…Samson had a penchant for booze and hookers.

      Moses was a murderer.

      Jacob was a thief, a brawler, and a polygamist.

      Isaiah had a foul mouth.

      Jonah was a coward.

      David was an adulterer and a murderer.

      Paul Was a Serial murderer.

      Reply
      • Amy says:

        And every single one of them repented, paid the price for their sins, and did their best to walk with God. You don’t get to use twist God’s word to justify a man in open rebellion to God and your willingness to put him in power. That’s heresy. The Bible says when the wicked rule, the people groan.

        See Exodus 18 for a Biblical description of the type of person who should rule.

        Even one of Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Panel just quit and wrote an article stating that if he’d remained on the panel after listening to Trump and getting to know him, he’d be betraying his God and his faith by tacitly approving him. He said Trump has shown he has no interest in God or Godly principles.

        Lastly, each and every one of you who says God can use Trump but not Hillary (if He so chose) is a hypocrite. God can and will use whom He chooses. In this election, I believe whichever horrible candidate loses will be part of God’s judgment on us for becoming such a morally depraved nation. You know, the kind of nation that nominates people like Trump and Hillary.

        Reply
    • Jason says:

      Do you actually believe the House would give the presidency to someone who didn’t even run in the primaries?

      No. When it boils down to it Evan is not a viable candidate because when push comes to shove the majority of people will vote for the nominated candidates.

      Christians are not called to choose righteous leaders, except within the church. Hell, when the New Testament was written there was no possibility of choosing political leaders anyway. Paul commanded his fellow Christians to pray for their political leaders, so that Christians would be able to practice their religious beliefs in peace.

      Hillary is overtly hostile to Christians who practice what they believe, Trump isn’t. That despite the fact that so many self-righteous evangelicals spend so much time sneering at him. Universal healthcare, as practiced in New Zealand and Australia (where a 1-1.5% tax is paid by every taxpayer to fund the public system, while taking private health insurance is also encouraged) actually works very well.

      Trump was a registered Republican from 1987 to 1999, Reform party for three years, then Democrat from 2001 to 2009. He’s been all over the shop politically. He isn’t a sexual predator, regardless of what the Democrat plants are saying. Are we to believe that Donald Trump, a man who the Barbi Twins describe as being a perfect gentleman, even when women were throwing themselves at him, willing to let him do anything, a man who has been romantically linked to numerous, very beautiful, women, has to force himself on women? I don’t think so.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Well if the Barbi Twins says he’s OK, then he MUST be, right?

        Seriously though, if you’re relying on them as your character witnesses, over all the women who have said he groped them and tried to kiss them, then your argument it in trouble. For a start, their claims match up exactly to what he himself admits to doing.

        As for your argument “Why would he have to force himself”, that’s like saying no wealthy person could be guilty of theft. And lots of men who can’t get women don’t react by assaulting and raping. To say that Trump could get women is in no way a defence against the allegations that he has groped and assaulted women. If he’s doing it as a demonstration of his POWER rather than because he’s trying to get his rocks off then it makes no difference whether or not women are ‘throwing themselves at him’. And those ‘locker room’ confessions paint a picture of man who does it to throw his weight around and assert dominance. “I can do it because I’m a star”. In other words, “If I can get away with this, then it MUST follow that I’m a star”.

        Reply
    • Louie says:

      Someone once told me, that you do not get the leader you want, or the leader you need, but the leader you deserve. If this is true, the USA is in trouble and the world will follow soon after.

      Reply
      • Toby says:

        You guys are supposed to be the ones with the “good news” but all I see is hopeless pessimism and pathological distrust.

        Reply
      • Louie says:

        Toby,
        If the statement is true, that is good news. It means you have an impact. If the USA gets its act together, they will get better leaders.
        From a Christian stand point, it does not sway me. Despite the leadership, if I accept the savior and walk the path, I will be saved. And not only me, but anyone who does the same.

        Reply
  3. Luke says:

    I. Am I the only one bitterly disappointing in this article? I have wondered what Dr. Turek thought of Donald. Here is an article that I thought would tell me! Yet this article basically says nothing. The points are: 1. it’s okay to meet with Trump, 2. the President is important, 3. It’s important to vote.

    Surely it’s not just me that sees these as not exactly the most controversial issues in this election — the issues which require leaders to step up, lead, and take a stand.

    II. I find the idea that Donald Trump is pro-life or cares even the smallest bit about the movement to be utterly laughable.

    It became clear that Donald Trump would not win on October 5, 2016. He was behind significantly on that day, when a tape of him bragging about sexually assaulting women come out. The media topics (and talk among conservative politicians) became not “can he win?” but “will he drop out?” (Not good — as Donald might say.)

    Donald responded to all this by turning on Republican politicians. He spoke against McCain, McConnell, Paul Ryan. He basically declared war on his party!

    Why do I mention this? Because that party is the ONLY thing that can now stop Hillary’s pro-choice agenda A Republican senate will have leverage to secure more mainstream (less liberal extreme) judges. On October 5, a Republican Senate became the most important weapon the pro-life movement has.

    Did Donald fight for that weapon? Did he tell us to support the men and women (who actually have a history of a pro-life record)?

    No, his response was to personally insult them. He decided to fight against them.

    His response was to take the ship down with him — the only ship the pro-life movement had.

    He could have fought for the pro-life ship, but it would have required humility. Surely no one is surprised that Donald chose his ego, over the pro-life movement. I certainly hope no one here is deluded enough to not realize that this is exactly what he has done.

    Thanks,

    Luke

    “If you lose an election you can live to fight another day and move on, but if you lose an election while giving up your very soul then you have really lost it all.” Dr. Russell Moore

    Reply
    • Jason says:

      Trump didn’t brag about sexually assaulting women. He stated, quite clearly, that when you are a celebrity women let you do things with them. The Barbi Twins described how, when they went out to parties with him, women were throwing themselves at him, indicating that what he was attributing to celebrity status is true. Was he vulgar? Yes. Was he describing sexual assault? No.

      Trump attacks those who attack him. If he attacked Ryan et al then it was because he believed they were attacking him.

      As for your claims that the Republicans are pro-life. They’ve controlled the House for years, possibly more often than the Democrats. Have we seen any movement in America towards a more pro-life stance? Or has it been business as usual?

      I prefer the saying, “a coward dies a thousand times, a brave man only once”.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        I agree with the latter part of your post, but Trump WAS bragging about assault. He said he just starts kissing them, he doesn’t even ask. This is backed up by the numerous accounts from women saying he’d just jump on them and force his tongue down their throats.

        Reply
      • Kyle says:

        The way he described his actions is not how consent works. He described sexual assault.

        Trump attacking those who attack him is a major sign of weakness. How would he react if other world leaders attacked him?

        Republicans are only pro-birth. If they were so pro-life they would oppose the death penalty and welcome Syrian refugees that are dying by the thousands.

        Reply
    • TGM says:

      Good questions Luke. To be fair, I suspect that Frank is declining to comment on Trump due to the non-profit status of his organization. No need to run afoul of the feds. The article is probably already close enough to the line as is.

      I personally find it distressing that evangelicals would support Trump. I get supporting the Republican platform, but there is nothing I’ve seen about Trump to suggest he actually believes anything pro-Christian. Where are the Christian family values I hear about so often? I almost choked when I heard Glenn Beck say he would support Clinton over Trump. I have to begrudgingly grant him some respect for consistency of position.

      Given that so many evangelicals favor Trump (a habitual liar with 3 wives, an admitted history of predation, questionable morals, advocator of violence and torture) over Clinton (enduring marriage with demonstrated charitable generosity and a much smaller evidence of moral decay) demonstrates that there is something else going on, the least of which is that these evangelicals themselves lack integrity and commitment to the values they continually demand of others. How pathetic really. Family values? I call shenanigans.

      Reply
      • Luke says:

        TGM,

        Perhaps (he is worried about campaign intervention restrictions), but I read plenty of non-profits who take a much tougher stand. (And there are election time articles on this very site which take pretty firm stands.)

        I encourage everyone to read Christianity Today’s editorial on Donald Trump. It begins with “As a non-profit journalistic organization, Christianity Today is doubly committed to staying neutral regarding political campaigns—the law requires it, and we serve our readers best when we give them the information and analysis they need to make their own judgments.” It takes a stand, without running afoul of the law. Many others have done the same.

        I was hoping for more from Mr. Turek. I have read so much about the importance of morality and moral leadership on this site. I’ve seen many people criticized here that the silence is deafening at a time when a leading contender for the most powerful position on earth can be described thusly: ” That Trump has been, his whole adult life, an idolater of this sort, and a singularly unrepentant one, should have been clear to everyone.” (Christianity today, emphasis mine).

        Thanks,

        Luke

        Reply
        • toby says:

          I don’t get how people can be so taken in by a guy with a history of stiffing people he promised to pay. He had an architect he cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars, failing to pay their agreed upon amount. He’s a typical conservative politician. They’ll promise you the moon, all of the great things they’ll do, then fail to pay for any of it and leave it to a democrat to play the bad guy raise taxes to try to clean up the mess they left.

          And how to do they get elected? By pulling the religious around by the collar and perpetuating that abortion stance is a valid reason to choose a candidate. Abortion is and always has been a red herring used by conservatives to screw the poor religious into voting against their own interests. Pastors and apologists do their flock no service in intimating that if they vote for someone that will preserve abortion rights then their god will heap fiery justice on us. Wake up and look around the world! Where’s his righteous justice being doled out in places that cut up young girls sex organs? Burn children for witchcraft? Worship the wrong god? Good grief, wake up.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            Anna, I’m not taken in by her. I was for Bernie in the primary and now there must be a pragmatic choice between an orange, egotistical monster with no experience (and what experience he has had in business has been ethically questionable on many occasions) and an experienced, imperfect person with so many conspiracy theories swirling around her that it’s hard to believe any of them. If he can be poked so lightly in a debate and then go crazy demeaning a pageant contestant after it, then there’s something off in his judgement and self-control.

            I currently work with a woman that believes the Clinton body count garbage. Someone told her, and she believes it without checking into it at all. Some people will believe anything, largely based on their biases, and no amount of facts can shake them out of it.

    • Julian says:

      Republican leaders are the main reason Trump is the nominee. Voters were sick of putting them in power then watching them retreat every time the battle got tough.

      Reply
  4. Curtis says:

    Too bad trump doesn’t support much of the republican platform….can’t vote for either him nor hillary. Might I suggest the small government, pro – Christian values of the Constitution Party.

    Reply
  5. Crawford says:

    I have a few thoughts on regarding my fellow brother’s and sister’s statement (including Al Mohler) that Evangelicals can’t “support Trump” (whom I call the King of Butt Clowns) at the risk of losing all “moral credibility.”

    I believe that this view (and Mohler’s) is extremely simplistic. That is not to say that I have a qualm with those that refuse to cast a vote for the King of Clowns (Trump). I respect that decision. I respect it, because I understand it; and I understand it because I held to the same view for quite some time.

    However, such statements simply do not take into account *true* Moral Dilemmas and how ethical theories such as Graded Absolutism, take such difficult decisions into account in an effort to work through them. And, for the love of all things holy, this election just *is* a true moral dilemma (or trilemma) –

    1) Does one vote for Man-child with the character of a literal caveman; or

    2) Does one vote for a criminal politician that, if she gets what desires (with an eight year foundation already laid) a socialized government that, literally, destroys the foundations and basic axioms of American principles coded within the constitution – not to mention laboriously furthering the cause of evil organizations bent on profiting -profiting – on the death of undesired children; or

    3) Does one vote for Joe Blow #3 who has much chance at winning as my first-grade daughter; effectively allowing the second option to take place?

    For instance, if my neighbor that constantly treats his wife like garbage, if his house is on fire with their children inside, and if I must join him in an effort to save the children – though I could (and want) take this opportunity to beat his teeth out – can anyone seriously claim that I am “supporting” him? Anyone being intellectually honest realizes that I am simply forced to *triage* my moral obligations. Do I want to beat his teeth out? Yes. Do I beat his teeth out? Perhaps later… but not when the children are screaming. I do not “support Trump” anymore than I would support the man that mistreats his wife – but I have to work with what, or who, is in front of me to save children – or save a country and its children.

    Having said all of the above… I do not like the choices, and it is not easy. But if do go the route of “Trump,” I hope that no one will simply oversimplify such a complex issue with dismissive name calling and simplistic labels.

    Reply
    • Luke says:

      Crawford said:
      “whom I call the King of Butt Clowns”
      “Man-child with the character of a literal caveman”

      Crawford said:
      “I hope that no one will simply oversimplify such a complex issue with dismissive name calling and simplistic labels.”

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      I’m not sure that I would label Albert Mohler’s critique as more simplistic than the system you lay out. I actually find it a more complex moral choice that weighs what we give up in moral standing by promoting Donald. I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to call it simplistic, but I’m happy to disagree.

      I think what you put forth is worth considering (and obviously many have made arguments along these lines), but I think there is a valid counterargument as well.

      It goes like this:

      1. If you are cuurently planning to vote for Donald, then is there anything he could do that would lose your vote?
      (For example, what if he did what he described on that bus to your husband/wife? What if he did it to your son/daughter? Maybe if he sacrificed a child in the name of Thor for a final electoral push? I won’t keep putting forth examples, the question is: is there anything he could do to lose your vote?)

      2a. If the answer is yes: then we are left with the question of why his many undisputed moral transgressions for which he has expressed no repentance or regret do not cross the line. If there is something he could do that is “bad enough” to lose your vote, you are de facto saying that the things he has done are not “that bad”. As far as I’m concerned, there is no satisfactory answer to this question.

      2b. If the answer is no, then we are left to concede there is NO standard. We are saying that one can perform absolutely any behavior, and we do not find that a disqualifying feature. One can do literally anything — anything — and not lose our support.

      For me the only morally congruent answer is to say: yes, there are things a candidate can do to lose my vote, and Donald Trump has done them — many of them.

      I have a different question, Crawford: Are you saying that if your hypothetical neighbor himself were in the burning house, you would not attempt to save him? (This seems implied, but perhaps not intentionally.)

      Thanks,

      Luke

      Reply
  6. Scott says:

    I’m ashamed that you would compromise your faith, Frank. Voting for Trump is voting for a very evil and unrepentant man who has bragged about seducing married women, who claims that he doesn’t need God’s forgiveness because he’s never done anything wrong, and is everything Christians stand against.

    I’ll simply reference what Steve Deace said…he received an email from an atheist who said (and I am paraphrasing) “I knew you guys were hypocrites. You spoke out loudly about the dangers of letting transgender men in women’s restrooms. But you stand by Donald Trump and won’t disavow him even though he brags about doing the very things you warned would occur if restrooms were opened to both genders. It’s clear that you aren’t taking a moral stand, but a political one and that your claim to morality is nothing more than hypocrisy.”

    Our witness is important, Frank. Our message is crucial. The consistency of our life is paramount. Nothing in scripture…nothing…indicates that Christians should side with such a terrible man as Mr. Trump. Even Wayne Grudem has retreated on his earlier position. You need to do the same if you’re to maintain any credibility whatsoever with the audience you claim to care about (atheists and seekers).

    Reply
  7. Dan Brooks says:

    I think it is a travesty, and a crystal clear example of the depravity of the human condition that this blog post and every single comment on it are all center-justified. Every single word. What does it say about our society when we so easily toss aside the left-justification that our forefathers used for centuries?

    Reply
  8. Alex Guggenheim says:

    I’m voting for the Caesar who will preserve my freedoms and my country’s more than the other, oh and the one friendly to Christians and not willing to continue with our public harassment as an unofficial but real policy.

    Reply
  9. PG says:

    I do wonder where this idea that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics comes from. If it is beneficial to furthering the gospel we should get involved. Why are people trying to stick the light under the bed and why have they lost their saltiness.

    Reply
  10. Andy Ryan says:

    It’s pretty ironic that the same group of people telling us that men going into women’s bathrooms is a huge threat are now supporting a presidential candidate who bragged on air to Howard Stern that he gets to go into women’s changing rooms at Miss World competitions, where teenage girls were half-dressed or naked.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] a Clinton presidency. But there is so much more at stake than simply the Supreme Court. There are thousands of other appointments at stake when the new president takes office. There are the matters of religious liberty, abortion, […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *