Chris Buskirk: Yes, David and Nancy French, A Christian Can Support Trump

And if I can add, it's blasphemous to claim otherwise.

As far as I know, the test of Christian faith is a belief that God gave his only Son to save mankind. I don't remember seeing a notation, "Plus, you have to do whatever a narcissistic, Twitter-deranged crap-lawyer and his fame-thirsty wife tell you to do."

I'm personally tired of David French penning new secret codicils to the Bible.

[Trump's] private failings have been made very public prompting some Christian pundits to say that not only do those failings disqualify Trump from office, but they are so egregious as to make supporting him sinful for Christians.

That's the essential position of people like David and Nancy French, who last month wrote companion columns on the subject that they published on the same day--one in National Review and the other in the Washington Post. Mrs. French's column's pulls double duty: it's a hagiographic depiction of Mitt Romney in which she also devotes substantial effort to defaming the Huckabee clan--Governor Mike and his daughter, Sarah, the president’s unflappable press secretary--while Mr. French uses his column to accuse Franklin Graham of a "willingness to abandon Christian principles when it’s politically expedient" and who he claims "illustrates the collapsing evangelical public witness."

Of course, the same accusation is being leveled, sotto voce, against all the other naughty Christians who support Trump, too.

It should be obvious that support for a political candidate does not mean a blanket endorsement of every aspect that candidate's life. It is merely an endorsement of that person's policies and an assessment of his ability to perform in office. What's more, it's often not even a blanket endorsement of that, it's a practical decision that Candidate A, while imperfect, is preferable to Candidate B.

Yes, let's drill down on that. People like French claim that they didn't support anyone in the 2016 election, but in a two-person election, in which either A or B will win -- hint, Ben Shapiro, it is very much binary -- when you say that it is absolutely critical to the United States and God Himself that Candidate A be defeated, you are inarguably supporting Candidate B.

Does David and Nancy French's support of the abortion-loving Hillary Clinton diminish their Christian witness? Of course not; they'd probably claim it amplifies it.

The Frenches -- and NeverTrumpers, generally -- are fond of claiming that any Trump supporter supports each and every aspect of Trump, but then suddenly that logic doesn't apply when we talk about the candidate they supported in fact (and in deed): Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Then, suddenly, it's all a very complicated affair and you can't draw any inferential conclusions about someone's personal code of morality.

...

Why, then, do the Frenches insist on attacking Christians who support Trump not on a rational, political basis, but on the basis that their support for Trump implicates their faith and undermines their witness?

Understand what they are saying: if a Christian acts in a way that undermines his witness for Christ, he is in sin. And in the case of the Huckabees and Franklin Graham, it would be very public sin given their high profiles. This is a serious charge that David French does not take the time to substantiate.

He claims that Graham abandoned "Christian principles," but what principles does he claim were abandoned? He doesn’t say, so one can only infer.... They oppose [Trump's policies]--both are on the record as war hawks who believe in an aggressive American military posture abroad, both believe in mass immigration of the Paul Ryan variety, and both seem content to follow like a shadow behind liberalism's relentless march--never objecting very much to the direction, just the pace.

But mostly it seems to be about taste: Trump is brash and politically heterodox politically, while the Frenches are defenders of the status quo. Fine--but why try and theologize it?

I don't want to steal the whole thing, so go check it out.

But I have to quote this for the blasphemous French:

I suspect what the Frenches really want is a prophet, a priest, and a king to rule in this secular age, a political leader in which they can invest their highest hopes. But in doing so, they are placing upon liberal politics a weight it cannot hope to carry and are headed for disappointment.

The good news is, if they want a prophet, a priest, and a king, they already have one . . . in Christ.

Oh, Him. Not as exciting as MITT ROMNEY and his only begotten son PAUL RYAN, but people have been making do with Jesus for 2000 years.

Oh, and French?

The Lord hates a coward, one whose feet run quickly to evil.

And one who spreads strife among brothers, and who bears false witness.

He also hates a cuck. But I'm paraphrasing on that one.

posted by Ace of Spades at 01:03 PM

| Access Comments