The Washington Post Sunday called evangelicals “moral relativists” for supporting President Trump, but unless you subscribe to that fake news outlet, you can’t read the story.
I would not suggest doing so, but, instead, read it for free here. Or, just take my word for it.
Is that assertion true?
No, it is wholly a lie.
That’s not to say some evangelicals are not moral relativists.
But people like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell Jr. and Tony Perkins are not.
In American politics, we have choices to make. When “candidate A” supports 99 percent of what you believe and his or her opponent, “candidate B,” supports none of it, the morally responsible thing to do is to vote for “candidate A.” And when “candidate A” is elected president of the United States and fulfills his promises in record time, as President Trump has, you praise him, thank him, pray for his safety and continued good health and thank God for the blessing He is pouring out on your country.
It’s really that simple.
But, you know, there are some people who call themselves “evangelicals” who don’t see it that way. I would suggest to you that if they are truly supportive of life, liberty, religious rights, Israel’s self-determination and security, national sovereignty, the Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and the rule of law, that they should be as supportive of President Trump as I am in his dedication to those issues to date. If he falters in his second year or third year of fourth year, we should criticize him for doing so. Right now, however, there is very little to criticize. It’s quite simply, from an evangelical worldview, the best start to a presidency in modern history.
Those who attack evangelicals for supporting Trump are being disingenuous at best. Why shouldn’t they? He listened to them. He’s doing what they asked him to do. This is not a mystery. And it’s certainly not moral relativism. They didn’t change their positions. Trump changed his.
The Washington Post story, in making its case for evangelical moral relativism, cited one of its own columnists, Michael Gerson, described by the piece as “a leading evangelical.” Gerson wrote, according to the piece, “At the Family Research Council’s recent Values Voter Summit, the religious right effectively declared its conversion to Trumpism.”
That’s a lie and an insult.
When one “converts” to something, it suggests leaving behind one’s previous beliefs.
If anyone “converted” from his previous political beliefs, it is clearly Trump. From the perspective of the evangelical majority, that’s a good thing. We love converts to life, liberty, religious rights, Israel’s self-determination and security, national sovereignty, the Constitution, the sanctity of marriage and the rule of law. We make no apologies for that. We love it even more when people embrace God. And, whatever his past suggests, President Trump has demonstrated at least a public respect and reverence for the Creator of the universe and His ways.
In the world of politics, that is reason for praise, enthusiasm and thanksgiving.
As to Gerson, he is also quoted as writing: “Who would now identify conservative Christian political engagement with the pursuit of the common good? Rather, the religious right is an interest group seeking preference and advancement from a strongman – and rewarding him with loyal acceptance of his priorities. The prophets have become clients. The priests have become acolytes.”
If he actually wrote that and believes it, I would sincerely and respectfully question what kind of evangelical he is. Does Gerson support abortion on demand? Does he support same-sex “marriage”? Does he believe religious freedom as we have known it throughout America’s history is under assault? Does he support the nation of Israel’s right to self-determination about matters as simple as where its capital is located? Does he believe in national sovereignty?
I doubt it.
Though he calls himself an evangelical, he has contempt for what he calls the “religious right.” So, could it be that Gerson is a political wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Let’s be blunt: I don’t know the guy, but he’s a Trump hater. You don’t get a gig writing commentary at the Washington Post if you’re not.
Is that just an assumption on my part? No.
In October 2017, Gerson declared “Trump’s fundamental unfitness for high office.” He wrote that Sen. Bob Corker, another Trump hater, “has given public permission to raise the most serious questions: Is Trump psychologically and morally equipped to be president? And could his unfitness cause permanent damage to the country?” and “It is no longer possible to safely ignore the leaked cries for help coming from within the administration. They reveal a president raging against enemies, obsessed by slights, deeply uninformed and incurious, unable to focus, and subject to destructive whims.”
If you believe that, then you, too, are probably a Trump hater – or, perhaps, just hopelessly out of touch with reality.