How did we get here?

This article was written in March 2025 when we were just 3 months into President Trump’s second term.

            How did we get here, that is, to this point where we have a man like Mr. Trump elected president for the second time, with the support of most evangelicals, despite myriads of incidents and scandals that would have derailed any other candidate?  Four things come to mind, the first is that evangelicals decided on a transactional approach in which character doesn’t matter, if the candidate supports our core causes. But should evangelicals, of all people, be saying that character doesn’t matter?  Do we realize what a big shift this represents?  During the sex scandal of the Clinton years, evangelicals were insistent that character mattered.  Trump is at least as sexually immoral as Clinton ever was, yet now suddenly it doesn’t matter! With Trump’s turn towards authoritarianism, consider what it means that a person of his character has almost absolute power.  That is a very dangerous situation and we deceive ourselves if we think character doesn’t matter.

            The second explanation as to how we got here is that we believed Trump’s lies.  Or, to put it the other way around, Mr. Trump succeeded in deceiving a large portion of the American public into believing his lies.  If we look back, we can observe how he has done this.  I don’t think it is difficult to see what his tactics were (and are). He is so prolific in doing this (unfortunately) that it will take a separate blog article will expose 9 ways in which he succeeds in getting millions of Americans to believe his lies.

Third, we got here as evangelicals because we failed to think theologically about a host of other issues besides the core issues that drove initial conservative support for Trump.  Those core issues were abortion / right to life, religious liberties, and opposition to the LGBT agenda.  But many other issues are part of the conservative agenda as well, such as opposition to any form of gun control, cutting government social programs that help the poor, taking a hard stance on immigration, and opposing climate change initiatives. And now Trump has added his own priorities, such as cutting off all federal aid that helps the poor worldwide, being anti-diversity of all kinds, being against medical and scientific research, and hiring and firing in the government based on loyalty to him rather than competency. Have we taken the time to reflect theologically on these issues to determine whether the conservative stance, especially Trump’s form of it, is truly a Biblical or Christian stance?  Or have we simply taken it as a package deal and assumed that the conservative stance is the Christian stance?  It is beyond the scope of this essay to evaluate theologically each of these issues, but if we were to do so we might find that many of these are simply American conservative values, not Christian values, and in some cases these political stances go square against Christian teaching.

Besides all this, perhaps the most significant issue that needs to be thought through theologically is Christian Nationalism, which seeks to politically establish Christianity as the dominant moral and cultural order.  The strategy was well thought out by the crafters of Project 2025, which Trump denied knowing anything about, yet it has provided the blueprint for his barrage of executive orders.  According to CNN’s analysis, 36 of 53 first week executive orders evoked proposals outlined in project 2025’s blueprint for the next Republican president. Is the strategy of Christian Nationalism the strategy that evangelical Christians should be supporting?  Have we thought about this theologically?  It seeks to establish a kind of theocracy like that in the Old Testament, but is there anything in the New Testament that suggests this should be our goal in the present era?  Have we considered the outcomes historically when Christianity has allied itself with political power?  Has not Christianity thrived and been at its purest and best when it was not allied with political power, but was a persecuted minority? What is the eschatology behind Christian Nationalism?  Are we looking for Christ to come and establish a political kingdom of justice and righteousness (the pre-millennial view) or do we think it is our job to usher in a Christian political kingdom (the post-millennial view)?  American evangelicals have been predominately pre-millennial (remember the Left Behind series?) but now are throwing their support behind a Christian Nationalism approach that is essentially post-millennial.  Has anyone noticed that this is happening or asked whether we in fact agree with the theology behind it?  Or have we just been carried along by the conservative political winds, assuming that all this is what God wants?  

Fourth, we got here by overlooking warning signs along the way. Before the 2016 election, the Access Hollywood tapes came out in which we heard Trump talk boastfully about groping women because someone famous like him can do whatever he wants.  This was disgusting, yet most evangelicals easily gave him a pass after he walked back the comments by saying that was just “locker room talk.”  Is this the kind of locker room talk that you would find acceptable for your son to say, or for you yourself to say as an evangelical Christian, or even for any decent person to say?  No—of course not!  That was an early warning sign, but evangelicals ignored it.  We should have taken warning when Trump went against precedence by refusing to turn over his tax returns when he was running for president in 2016.  This clearly looked like the behavior of someone who had something to hide.  Even when his tax returns were leaked and it was revealed that he, a billionaire, paid only $750 in federal taxes the year he entered the White House, much less than the average American, his supporters were unconcerned.  They easily accepted his explanation that he was just smart in how he did his taxes. But something is wrong when a billionaire is paying far less in taxes than the average American. This was a warning sign, but his supporters ignored it.

Consider the firing of FBI director James Comey during Trump’s first term.  The FBI was investigating Trump for his attempt to interfere with the election by colluding with Russians.   Trump didn’t like it, so he fired Comey.  Firing the person who is investigating you is not proper protocol for someone who is transparent and above board.  It is what you expect from a president who has something to hide.  That should have been a warning sign.  The Democrats in the House impeached him for it, but Republicans overlooked it. Consider also the former cabinet members, who were appointed by Trump himself, but after working with him for some time and seeing what he was like, now speak harshly against him.  John Kelley was his former chief of staff for two years, and during this last election cycle came out calling Trump a fascist because of his dictatorial tendencies and for saying that he wished his military leaders would show the same deference to him that Hitler’s military showed to him.  Of course, Trump denied it, but John Kelley is known as an honorable military leader.  Is he not a credible source?  Other respected military leaders have also spoken against Trump, such as General McCrystal, retired four-star general who said that he would not be willing to work for Trump because it is important to work for people that he thinks are basically honest. Republicans have traditionally had high regard for the military, so comments like these coming from these men should have been a warning.  Yet evangelical voters ignored it.

Bill Barr, Trump’s Attorney General in his first term, and Mike Pence, his Vice President, had been loyal to a fault in serving Trump.  Yet Barr knew there was no credible evidence to support Trump’s claim that the election was stolen, and he resigned rather than being forced to promote Trump’s narrative.  Pence refused to abdicate his duty to certify the election because he knew it was his constitutional duty, even though Trump pressured him to do it. As a result, the rioters, with Trump’s approval, shouted “Hang Pence.”  Evangelicals knew Pence to be a fellow evangelical and person of integrity and for Trump to pressure him to violate the constitution was a serious line to cross.  That was a huge warning sign.  Yet Republicans, including evangelicals, still chose Trump over Pence and others as the Republican candidate for 2024. Regarding the January 6^th insurrection, we saw the footage for ourselves of what Trump said on the White House lawn and how he incited the rioters to go the capitol.  What he did was so obvious and inexcusable that 10 House Republicans joined the Democrats in impeaching him and 7 Senate Republicans voted to convict him.  In this polarized era, that is almost unheard of.  If there was any doubt as to his culpability, the January 6^th hearings led by Liz Cheney, a conservative Republican, and others, provided strong evidence of his guilt.  Yet many Trump supporters wouldn’t watch or even consider the evidence, because Trump convinced them it was a witch hunt.  As Christians, aren’t we supposed to care about truth enough to look at the evidence?  When encouraging people to consider Christ, don’t we tell them to examine the evidence and see for themselves?  Is Trump above Christ that one can give support to him without even considering the evidence?  When Republicans, including most evangelicals, decided to stay with Trump after all this, a line was crossed.  It became clear that Trump had such a hold on them that literally nothing he could do, even as unthinkable as inciting an insurrection before their very eyes, could dissuade them from supporting him.  Consider the parable of the frog in boiling water.  If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will instantly leap out. But if you put it in a pot filled with pleasantly tepid water and gradually heat it, the frog will remain in the water until it boils to death.   Evangelicals who are still “in the pot” with Trump must be more discerning than they have been in the past and have the wherewithal to jump out of the pot before it is too late.