About that evangelical 'non-endorsement' of Trump

Religion columnist Mike McManus, a very nice man but no conservative he, thinks he's found the big story hook in the largest gathering of evangelical leaders ever to meet with a presidential candidate – that being Donald Trump.

McManus writes: "More than 1,000 evangelicals met with Donald Trump this week, but when eight prominent organizers spoke at a press conference afterward, they were asked who was ready to endorse the winner of the Republican presidential primaries. None raised their hand. Not Franklin Graham, Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, nor Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said she felt the meeting was 'positive. But the question still is whether I can feel confident in asking people to join me.'"

Of course, if that were the end of the story, it would indeed be a good news hook – one that would mean Trump failed in what he sought to accomplish with this meeting.

But it's not the end of the story. It's not even the correct premise for the story.

As someone who was actually present for the gathering and someone who has always had a pretty good eye for news hooks, let me fill you in on, as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story."

The intention of the gathering was never to elicit political endorsements. Trump didn't organize the meeting. It was put together by the evangelical leaders themselves – specifically and exclusively for the purpose of getting to know and understand the candidate better.

The same group is attempting to put together a similar meeting with Hillary Clinton – for the same purpose.

What kind of sense would it make if the organizers of the Trump meeting left the room and endorsed him?

Experience more of Joseph Farah's no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

I can also tell you that some of the evangelical leaders present in that room, including myself, Jerry Falwell Jr. and many others, have already enthusiastically endorsed Trump. We did so before that meeting was ever planned.

McManus, on the other hand, doesn't like Trump. So he was searching, it seems to me, for a dark cloud rather than a silver lining for the presumptive Republican nominee.

From my perspective, the meeting was a grand-slam home run for Trump.

McManus goes on to write: "Trump's comments were often odd. 'The next president is going to be very vital … in freeing up your religion, freeing up your thoughts. You really don't have religious freedom.' I doubt that one attendee agreed with that," he writes. "They oppose threats to religious freedom, such as the insistence by the Obama administration that employers give employees free 'morning after pills' to terminate a pregnancy. But all feel they have personal religious freedom to choose a church or teach their children about God."

Here, it seems to me, that McManus is using Barack Obama's definition of religious freedom, rather than the definition of America's founders. Obama has taken to calling it "freedom of worship," rather than "freedom of religion." There's a reason for that. Obama is OK with people "worshiping" as they please. His problem with Christianity is when we take our faith into the public square.

So let me categorically say, again, as someone present in the meeting, I wholeheartedly agree with Trump – and I know many, many others present at the gathering did as well, including some or all of the aforementioned names.

Trump is not always precise in his use of the language. He speaks from his heart. He is not immersed in church talk. But the substance of what he said at that meeting about religious freedom is spot on – and as bold and courageous as any presidential candidate has been since Ronald Reagan.

McManus still clings to the hope that Republicans will decide to nominate someone other than Trump at their convention. To say that is politically unrealistic would be the understatement of 2016.

To quote his column: "If not one evangelical 'leader' can endorse Trump, they ought to take the lead in pressing Republicans to nominate a man they can support enthusiastically."

Again, it's just not true that no evangelical leader can endorse Trump.

Many have. Many more will. In fact, I suspect, 2016 will be a banner year for evangelical registration and votes – something we didn't see in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000 and even earlier.

And Trump's unscripted candor and forthrightness at this gathering will be a big reason for it.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].