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).

***

I had the privilege of taking Systematic Theology 1 from Dr. Wayne Grudem at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. It was an honor to learn from such a man and I continue to be thankful for that experience. I say this not to puff up myself, or to declare myself an equal authority with Dr. Grudem when it comes to his specialty. I say it because I am predisposed to give Dr. Grudem the benefit of the doubt, not only as a brother in Christ, but as a former student.

Also, I want to make something else painfully clear. Dr. Grudem is a good, decent man. He has immeasurably influenced a generation of evangelicals through his Systematic Theology, and by his teaching and speaking during the past several decades. It is also obvious that Dr. Grudem wants what is best for America. He cares deeply about the future of his country and the role Christians play in it. I celebrate these truths regardless of the following disagreement.

I am disappointed with Dr. Grudem’s recent publication extolling the morality of a vote for Mr. Trump. Primarily, Grudem thinks Trump is a preferable moral alternative to Mrs. Clinton. Grudem builds his case on Trump’s stated policy positions in a range of areas, but also on his belief a Republican team in the executive branch will positively influence our politics. Grudem makes much of what could happen regarding Supreme Court appointments (and religious liberty and abortion), tax rates, business regulations, and other matters. I disagree.

Grudem essentially soft-peddles Trump’s weaknesses, and as a result, he likely misjudges what Trump might do as president. Grudem refers to Trump as “a good candidate with flaws,” and he seems to rate Trump’s goodness in comparison to Hillary Clinton. He is hopeful for what Trump could do in office. To a degree, Grudem is willing to take on faith what I think is contradicted by evidence. Where Grudem sees the potential of conservative policy, I see the reality of Trump’s character.

Whenever we evaluate candidates, we do so with limited information. Since we rarely know these people (especially at the presidential level), we decide based on their past actions and what they present to us. With this we may infer their behavior once in power.

Trump brings particular problems because he has never held elective office. We have no real sense of Trump as a political decision-maker, or as a consensus builder. Grudem attempts to use Trump’s business success as an indicator, but the skills are so different, we have to take such comparisons as only moderately relevant. We can, however, evaluate Trump based on his campaign, his policies, and his integrity. The integrity, even when compared to most candidates, is critical since there is no record of past political actions. We need to see consistency, steadfastness, and some durable relationship between deeds and words, even in the governing microcosm of the campaign itself. Though not the best preparation for leading, campaigning at least reveals how candidates handle crises, attempt to lead and inspire, and communicate about themselves and their ideas.

Even if we evaluate Trump based only on his behavior during this campaign, I am not sure what he believes and his actions have not revealed enough integrity to make him trustworthy. He has already taken multiple positions on immigration, his signature issue. Is he in favor of banning all Muslim immigrants? Only those from terrorist-supporting nations? Those who swear off Sharia law? Those that pass a beefed-up background test? He has taken at least two positions on his attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has waffled on abortion. Does he support punishing women who seek the procedure or not? His statements on health care and the minimum wage are all over the place. If we are honest about this candidate, there is little reason to have faith in the consistency of his words, much less in the relationship between his words and deeds. In short, I don’t trust Trump enough to believe that his stated policies mean anything. To draw an inference about how he might govern based on his stated political beliefs seems problematic from the beginning since his beliefs are in question.

Grudem anticipates this criticism, and answers it by claiming we can never know with 100% certainty what a president will do once in power, so we have to act based on what they are most likely to do. This is true, to a point, but it ignores what we do know of Donald Trump. He is not a mystery. He is not shrouded in the mists of time, just beyond the reach of the senses. We should actually assume he will lead as he has behaved thus far, not that he will behave differently once in office. That reality does not provide more hope, as it might have with the optimistic air that surrounded President Obama as a candidate, but it fills me with the dread that Donald J. Trump is precisely what he has held himself out to be.

We have seen consistency with Trump, but it is more worrisome than comforting. He trucks in conspiracies. Did the United States detonate the World Trade Center on 9/11? Did Ted Cruz’s father help assassinate JFK? Is the election system rigged? Either Trump believes such things, which is frightening intellectually, or he casually uses such lies for his own purposes, which is frightening morally.

Trump has also consistently used his words as weapons in the most vile ways. He is not merely brash, as Grudem admits, but he uses his financial success to denigrate and demean others. He routinely, and publicly, degrades women based on their looks. He re-tweets anti-Semitic, racist rhetoric. He impugns groups of people based on their race and religion.

Trump has also shown himself consistently disinterested in the details attached to affairs both foreign and domestic. He answers questions with vague generalities and insults. He has shown only a willingness to memorize slogans. His public statements suggest he is unfamiliar with the three branches of government, what they do, or how they are constrained by the Constitution. Trump seems to revel in such ignorance, promising that we will “win” and that he will “hire” the best people, which Dr. Grudem assumes will be sufficient, as it has been in the business world. Even if it is true in the business world, that Trump has surrounded himself with bright advisors, he can properly evaluate their abilities and their advice due to his own business expertise. He carries no such knowledge into the political realm.

Dr. Grudem’s main justification for Trump–that he will be a better president than Hillary Clinton–rests on strained assumptions. His belief in Trump’s “goodness” is largely detached from Trump’s own behavior as a candidate.

Part 2 deals with Trump’s potential as a destructive force. This capacity is revealed in his campaign.