MAX LUCADO, a Protestant pastor and best-selling author from San Antonio, Texas, refuses to jump on the Trump bandwagon. Lucado wrote a blog post called, “Decency for President,” in which he took the candidate to task for his tone. He said, in so many words, that Trump is insulting and arrogant. In this, Lucado was correct and should be commended, though he was beat up by Trump supporters for saying it. He told Christianity Today, “I would have absolutely no right to speak up except that he repeatedly brandishes the Bible and calls himself a Christian.”

There was one occasion he held up a Bible. On another occasion, at Liberty University, he read from Scripture. On multiple occasions he’s said “Of course I’m a Christian.” There was a time in Iowa when he said “I’m a Christian,” and somebody asked about forgiveness and he said “I’ve never asked God for forgiveness.”

I can’t imagine that. I’m just shaking my head going “How does that work?” Does a swimmer say “I’ve never gotten wet?” Does a musician say “I’ve never sung a song?” How does a person claim to be a Christian and never need to ask for forgiveness?

The Washington Post, which normally shows no concern for indecency in popular culture, picked up on Lucado’s piece and published it:

“The stock explanation for Mr. Trump’s success,” wrote Lucado, “is this: he has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel.”

Trump supporters might have legitimately questioned whether the pastor wasn’t campaigning for one of the other Republican candidates. The article was not well-received by them even though Lucado never once mentioned Trump’s personal life, perhaps the most glaring evidence that he is not telling the truth about his convictions. Christianity Today asked Lucado whether he wasn’t expecting too much. He responded:

We don’t elect a president to spiritually oversee the affairs of a nation. We do elect a commander-in-chief to set a respectable standard for our nation and to be the kind of man or woman that we would respect when they speak. That we would know their character and their desire lines up with their faith, whatever their faith would be.

I appreciate the idea that we don’t want to elect a pastor-in-chief. I’m a pastor and I understand that it’s my assignment to spiritually oversee the affairs of a circle of people. That’s not the job of a president. They are much more what I would see as a Daniel or Nehemiah. They are much more concerned about the affairs of our country.

But boy, we have to call upon them. We pay a high price as a people if we don’t hold our leaders to a high standard.

What Lucado didn’t say is that Trump’s arrogance, incivility and impulsiveness dishonor an honorable cause: the cause of protecting America’s borders. We will win in this cause with heroism and honor, or not win at all.

 — Comments —

Bruce B. writes:

Twenty five years ago, America was offered a candidate with the same positions on economic nationalism, immigration patriotism and America first foreign policy. That man was Patrick J. Buchanan who also happens to be a traditional Catholic. We rejected Pat but now we accept those positions when they come from an arrogant loud mouth.

If I bother to vote at all I will vote for Trump but not with enthusiasm. Mr. Buchanan was much more to my liking. But I guess he wasn’t colorful enough for us.

Mr. Trump is probably technically a Christian in the sense of having been validly baptized but I don’t think anyone is imagining that he is anything but a (very) mildly observant mainline Protestant.

Bruce adds:

Also, I share your concerns about certain positions (immigration and economic patriotism, foreign policy realism) being associated with Trump. I can imagine that if he loses, these positions will be closely associated in the public’s mind (with media assistance, of course) with Trump and all his character flaws that will be seen as leading to his loss.

I’m not much for conspiracy theories, but if I were I’d wonder whether Trump’s campaign wasn’t deliberately constructed to damage the positions he is now associated with.

Bill R. writes:

You write, “We will win in this cause with heroism and honor, or not win at all.”

That is too idealistic and too unrealistic. That is to demand of your country, as the price for its salvation, a degree of moral splendor and irreproachability that is not fair to the flawed and imperfect human nature it is composed of. Few, if any, of the great struggles in history have been won so cleanly and so purely. There has always been plenty on the good side that was not heroic and honorable, but even mean, petty, vengeful, and ugly. Nations are human institutions. They are not perfect. And their leaders are not perfect. We must work to save our nation with what is available to us, in the time available, and not throw away the tools to do so that we have been offered simply because they are not as sparkling and shiny and smudge-free as some of us would like.

Laura writes:

At this point, it does appear to be too idealistic and unrealistic.

Laura adds:

I was at the supermarket yesterday and a man in front of me in the checkout line described to the cashier a bad experience he had at the meat counter with a rude customer who insisted that she was first.

He told the woman at the cash register, “I said to her, “Who do you think you are, Donald Trump?”

And the man laughed smugly with the cashier.

The man probably was the type who wouldn’t vote for Republican if his life depended upon it. To him, there probably is no deeper cause that Trump represents, which is unfortunate.

Please follow and like us: