Wayne Grudem, the theological guru, has created a firestorm by publishing an argument in favor of voting for Donald Trump. While I respect Grudem, I have three major problems with this advocacy. First, Dr. Grudem minimizes Trump’s weaknesses, which causes him to put too much faith in what Donald Trump might accomplish (Part 1). Second, Trump has the potential to be a destructive force as president on a variety of fronts, which should offset his advantages (Part 2). Third, Dr. Grudem discounts the cost that evangelicals will pay for being affiliated with Trump. These costs will likely make it harder to represent Christ to the world (Part 3 below).

***

During one part of his argument, Grudem warns,

“I am writing this article because I doubt that many “I can’t vote for Trump” Christians have understood what an entirely different nation would result from Hillary Clinton as president, or have analyzed in detail how different a Trump presidency would be.”

What I fear is that Grudem, along with James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Jr., and other evangelical leaders who have made peace with Trump as president, have made a critical mistake. In Grudem’s words, I fear these men have not understood what an entirely different evangelicalism will result from their support of Donald J. Trump.

Dr. Grudem appears to see this vote in purely transactional terms. If we do X (vote for Trump), Y (conservative Republican policies) has a higher probability than if we do non-X (vote for Hillary Clinton or another candidate, or choose not to vote). As a matter of pure political calculation, Dr. Grudem may be correct. We are probably more likely to get conservative Supreme Court justices with Trump than with Clinton, for example. Of course, I think that probability is much lower than Dr. Grudem, since I don’t trust that Trump will do what he says.

This analysis fails to account for the costs associated with supporting Trump. Unlike garden variety politicians, who may be able to make calculations based on raw politics, we, as followers of Christ, have another variable to consider. Every action we take has the potential to glorify or sully God. We must always act with the recognition that we are his ambassadors in a fallen world. Our decisions have the potential to strengthen or damage our Christian witness. God is sovereign, and we can rest in that fact, but our actions belong to us. We own them.

The last two or three decades have been bumpy for conservative evangelicals in the United States. Our critics claim we are more of a political movement than a faithful remnant. I think those accusations are overstated, but in their face we could claim a connection between our beliefs and our political behavior. We could, with some justification, support a variety of candidates. We cared about family values, the sacredness of human lives, our morality bled into our decisions, and we voted for a party and candidates that plausibly seemed supportive of those ideals.* There was a coherence, even if we were sometimes naive or strategically faulty.

Throwing in our lot with Donald Trump marks a moment of departure. At minimum, he cares very little, if at all, about the issues that have animated conservative Christians. He has shown no interest in abortion, rolling back same-sex marriage, or promoting a stable, nuclear family. We can argue about whether or not those policies are wise at this particular moment, but they were obviously the social foundation of evangelical political engagement since the 1980s. Trump, and the party he is attempting to create in his own image, has moved past these concerns.

A decision to back Trump, as evangelical leaders, in this circumstance could make sense if Trump conducted himself in ways we recognize, or if his actions promoted a broad civic virtue that would produce cultural benefits. We cannot expect our political leaders to endorse our agenda always, but we can hope they are “good” people in the ways we have defined good historically. Temperament, intelligence, and virtue could be the hallmarks of a worthy leader still disconnected from our dominant political concerns.

Unfortunately, Trump has displayed none of that goodness, nor has he demonstrated a fealty to or even a concern with what we have held dear. So, how do we explain evangelical support to a world in need of Christ?

For me, supporting Trump shows we really are a political movement more than a religious entity. We care about policies that are marginally related to the faith (like Supreme Court appointments, religious liberty) more than we care about the representation of our core values. We are agenda-driven. We are focused on the outcomes that empower us. We are just part of the partisan team: another interest group with a seat at the proverbial table. We should be so much more. We should be the refined conscience of our parties. If we are unwilling to denounce Trump as a candidate, who, exactly, are we willing to denounce?

Like it or not, Donald Trump is viewed by too many as a racist demagogue, a practiced liar, and a father of division, a whisperer of violence. Those impressions may be wrong, but, as of now, they are real. Choosing to publicly support him means we have hitched ourselves to these impressions, whether they are fair or not. So, not only is it hard to make a positive case for supporting Trump (which would be easy if he were an obviously good man or at least one who overtly supported our agenda, such as it is), but there is a negative case to be made against him. And these negatives are precisely characteristics we should be working against. We should be unifiers, not dividers. We should be truth-tellers, not liars. We should be peaceful in the world, not advocates of strife. Trump’s actions and attitudes are at odds with how we are to represent Christ to the world.

It also means, again, like it or not, people like Grudem will be called upon to explain and defend Trump, especially as he continues, as David French has said, his sprint to the bottom. Like the tar baby, once you touch Trump, you are entangled in his orbit–fair or not. Will Dr. Grudem be willing to answer questions on Trump’s outlandish statements? Will Jerry Falwell, Jr. assure us we have “misunderstood” Mr. Trump? Will James Dobson defend his lies?

This entanglement will make it harder, not easier, for us to be a cultural force. It will make it harder, not easier, to share the good news with Muslims in America. It will make it harder, not easier, for me to convince people I care about more than just politics.

If there is one consistent mistake we have made as evangelicals during the past several decades, it is the unending illusion that government can bend our culture toward God. We have been convinced too often that the next election, the next Supreme Court appointment, the next bill, or the next constitutional amendment would make all the difference. Donald Trump is just the latest next. But, unlike many of our previous hopes, he is devoid of the ideals and traits we have claimed to value over these many years. It makes me weep for the party, the policies, and the leaders of my youth.

*One could argue that evangelical support was too hopeful and misplaced. There is some reason to see evangelicals as misguided in their loyalty since the Republican Party rarely delivered on its promises for social conservatives. I agree with this argument, but at least there was some alignment between what evangelicals claimed to be and what they did politically.