Chris Thurman on Yes, It is Foolish for Evangelicals to Support Trump

Credit: Kevin Lamarque/REUTERS

I found Michael Brown’s response to my op-ed, “Are Evangelicals Who Support Trump Fools?” further proof that evangelicals who back Trump are foolish when it comes to how they view the President.

According to Merriam-Webster, foolish means “having or showing a lack of good sense, judgement, or discretion” and fool means “a person lacking in judgement or prudence.” Whether you say someone is being foolish or acting like a fool, Brown’s op-ed gave me no rational or biblical reason to think evangelicals who support the president are being anything other than both when it comes to their perception of the most powerful man in the world.

I read and re-read Brown’s op-ed, thinking the whole time about the old Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the beef?” What is Brown’s beef with what I wrote?  The best I could come up with is when he says, “Thurman seems blind to his (Trump’s) strengths and his potential to help America greatly.” I assume this is Brown’s main problem with what I wrote — that I’m blind to what’s good about Trump. From there, he goes on to call me out for being hypocritical about the whole matter given that I criticize evangelicals for being blind to Trump’s defects as president. Brown’s criticism is disconcerting on two levels.

First, why is Brown talking about me given that my op-ed was about evangelicals who foolishly support Trump in spite of the fact that he is a deeply mentally and morally disturbed person? This is a common tactic employed by many Trump supporters — go after the accuser rather than the accused.

I don’t have the space to go into it in much detail, but many of the people who disagreed with my op-ed (either at the end of my article, writing me via email, or calling me on the phone) said I was a baby-killer, immoral, disgracing the cause of Christ, and not even a Christian. Those were the nicest criticisms I got. Personally, I am growing sick and tired of Trump-supporting evangelicals attacking the messenger rather than the message. To fire back at the many disturbing aspects of what I said about Trump with “Well, he’s got some strengths, and you’re too hypocritical to acknowledge them” is weak at best.

Second, Brown is making an erroneous assumption about me, in this case that I am “blind to his (Trump’s) strengths and his potential to help America greatly.” I’m not blind to Trump’s strengths. I don’t believe he has any. I agree with Peter Wehner in his op-ed in the Atlantic, “Trump is Not Well,” that Trump is “a terribly damaged person, a broken man, a person with a disordered mind.” Please, don’t talk about his strengths when he has none. And, I’m not blind to Trump’s “potential to help America greatly.” I believe his malignant narcissism makes him a serious threat to harm America greatly. Honestly, hasn’t he already?

If Trump is a malignant narcissist as many of us believe, he is an evil person and has no redeeming qualities. Throughout human history, we have seen one evil person after another cause great harm to our world.  Would anyone look at an Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un and say they have “strengths” in the sense of positive character traits?  When are Trump-supporting evangelicals (and Republicans in general) going to admit they have hitched their wagon to someone with a severely disordered personality about whom nothing good can be said characterologically?

Click here to read more.

SOURCE: Christian Post, Chris Thurman