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 below). 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).

***

While Dr. Grudem argues for the good Trump could do as President (if all of his assumptions are justified), he fails to grapple with the havoc he might wreak. Interestingly, Grudem’s case for Trump’s goodness rests on inferences, while my argument for Trump as a destructive force rests on his actual behavior. The difference, I think, is instructive.

I think it is fair, based on the evidence, to conclude that Mr. Trump views foreign policy in a nationalistic framework. He has consistently touted “America First” as he comments on trade deals and long-standing alliances. When asked about his views on events in Turkey, Mr. Trump more than suggested that NATO allies may not be able to rely on American support, even if attacked, unless they can show some benefit to America. Newt Gingrich, one of Mr. Trump’s surrogates, elaborated, arguing that Estonia is practically a Russian suburb, and to risk war on Russian aggression in Estonia would be unwise.

NATO has been the cornerstone of U.S. and European affairs for more than half a century. NATO helped keep the Cold War cold instead of hot. NATO allies depend on American support to counter Russia’s power and proximity. What other allies are destined for the dustbin labeled “America First?” More critically, what will the world look like if Trump indeed governed based on these stated positions? Granted, he may not actually believe these positions, so it is possible he will change his mind. Notice a theme?

Trump’s most dangerous trait, however, is unconnected to any particular policy, but is a fundamental element of leadership. Trump’s temperament does not lend itself to crisis or criticism. He has revealed himself to be thin-skinned, and critiques draw out his ferocity, thereby displaying his imprudence. Not able to withstand a few barbs from the Khan family, parents still grieving the loss of their son, who died in the service of the United States, Trump “fired back,” attacking their religion, challenging their motives, and accusing Mrs. Khan of an inability to speak.

This is merely one episode of many. Trump’s vitriol knows no boundaries. When Megyn Kelly pushed Trump at a debate, he suggested her menstrual cycle was to blame. Ted Cruz became “Lyin’ Ted” when he posed a threat to Trump. Marco Rubio became “Little Marco.” Mitt Romney was a “choker.” Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, and Charles Krauthammer, all respected, conservative pundits, are “dummies.” He compared Ben Carson to a child molester and a psychopath when the surgeon surged in the polls. John McCain was only a war hero “’cause he got captured. I like people that weren’t captured, OK?”

This temperament has at least two negative consequences. First, how would Trump respond to international criticism? What if Vladimir Putin moves from soft support to outright hostility toward Trump as president? Entertaining? Perhaps. Destructive to America’s interests? Definitely.

Second, such behavior would have a cumulative drag on our nation if Trump becomes president. What might it do to our political culture to elevate such a man, with such a mentality and such an approach to criticism, to the most powerful position in the world? If Trump ascends to the presidency, like it or not, it legitimizes him, his methods, and his mentality. A culture that incentivizes such behavior is unstable and unserious. Perhaps, since he secured the GOP’s nomination, we have already touched this particular cultural bottom. But if we rest in the hope that things could be better, and that we have not reached a political point of no return, we have to believe that promoting Trump only hastens such a degradation.

Part 3 deals with the costs that would accrue to evangelicals if they choose to support Trump.