I also have found Grudem to be respectable in his Systematic Theology, but I'm disappointed in this article.
In summary, Grudem's points are:
- Trump's not really that bad, is he? His sins, even though he wears them proudly, shouldn't be offensive to Christians.
- Trump is the lesser of two evils. You don't want Hillary to win, do you? (Put another, even-more-cliched way, "not voting is the same as voting for Hillary" -- which is false, if I was never going to vote for Trump in the first place).
- Christianity means doing what's best for America (and Trump is what's best for America).
I disagree with these premises; I do think the sins that Trump wears not just unrepentantly, but proudly, should be offensive to Christians, and should be more offensive to Grudem than they are; he minimizes outright insults that Trump has doubled-down on as "careless remarks" rather than the more Biblical "out of overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks" (as Jesus said in Luke 6).
Yes, Trump is egotistical. That fault can be forgiven of someone who's repented of it. Instead, Trump has built his life around it (and marketed around it heavily). And, as he says, he believes he has nothing to apologize for (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns7ocpRhDD8), and as he said in a more-serious interview, if he does feel that he has made a mistake, he "[doesn't] bring God into that picture", but "just [goes] on and [tries] to do a better job from there." (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-on-god-i-dont-like-to-have-to-ask-for-forgiveness-2016-1)
Yes, Trump is bombastic and brash. a quick tongue, a quick temper, and a lack of discretion are not virtues, certainly not of the sort we should seek in our leadership. Relevant is Proverbs 14:29: "Whoever is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly." Rather, Christians should seek leadership who, as Paul prescribed in 1 Timothy, are "self-controlled, sober-minded, respectable..." (and Paul lists other qualities that are definitionally opposite Trump's entire self-built image: "hospitable....not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.")
It is one thing to lack nuance; it is another to suggest murdering innocents for their connections to criminals (as Trump did not just once, but multiple times: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-reiterates-desire-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html). Lacking nuance means "being unclear", not "clearly describing plans to execute something morally forbidden by Scripture". The only thing that lacks nuance is Trump's grasp on the truth; he later claimed, despite transcripts, that he never said he would do so: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-terrorists_us_56e0d7cde4b065e2e3d4d82d.
Lying to claim you didn't advocate sin just because it wasn't received well isn't the same as acknowledging and repenting of it. Trump has not "abandoned" those statements like Grudem claims; instead, he's just tried to convince us to forget them.
And yes, he can be vindictive to others. He's vindictive against reporters, his rivals, and anyone who simply disagrees with him. Indeed, he has quite a few very heated grudges held; he's gathered at least 250 publically-visible ones so far in the year he's been running for political office: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?_r=0 Among insults, you'll find personal attacks that no Christian should support (there are some notable ones against one of the many lawyers to bring court cases against him in there, but they should not be read to children; within his own party, he uses terms like "major loser, zero credibility", "loser", "should just get a life", calling a rival "an embarrassment" to his state). His vindictiveness spreads even to those who now leave him alone; he's the first political candidate in my recollection to pour money from his own accounts into "ending the careers" of those who ran against him in the same presidential party http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-07-22/trump-would-fund-super-pacs-aimed-at-taking-down-cruz-kasich-iqybu9m1
Love keeps no records of wrongs; Trump establishes foundations for revenge against those he felt has wronged him at some point. Even if he spoke "with the tongues of men and angels", it's clear it would profit him (or those advocating him) nothing.
Indeed, Trump's idea of the closest forms of love -- marital love -- includes, as Grudem even notes, proudly-declared unfaithfulness to his multiple ex-wives. As he said about his first marriage himself: “I was bored when she was walking down the aisle, I kept thinking, ‘What the hell am I doing here?’” (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-history-women-adultery-objectification-article-1.2604073)
Grudem's next point -- that Trump's disdain for women and for people of other races is purely a press invention -- doesn't hold up in light of what Trump himself actually says. Note the article date of 2006 in this quote against Rosie O'Donnell (ideologically, not my favorite figure, but ideology isn't the subject of Trump's remarks): http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20005103,00.html
Trump says of O'Donnell: "I'll most likely sue her for making those false statements – and it'll be fun. Rosie's a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie." (As an aside: Trump's frequently-expressed eagerness to go to court is in clearly-direct opposition to 1 Corinthians 6).
Straight from his own Twitter account, you can also see Trump advocating divorce as "a good decision" when a woman is "unattractive": https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240462265680289792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Female reporters who have asked him tough questions are called "bimbo" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/629553612839124992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) among other names.
So I don't think it's a stretch to say that accusations of misogyny from Trump are not a media concoction as Grudem here claims, but a pattern of behavior that can be verified from even a quick examination.
But that says nothing about the accusations of racism.
Examining Trump's record, we see that he was found guilty of denying apartment rentals to black applicants while granting the same housing to white applicants, and instructing employees to discourage black apartment-seekers, while also choosing not to advertise in newspapers that he felt, according to his lawyer, were"geared to minorities....supported a Puerto Rican for mayor against a Jew..." (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan-7380462)
He also told the president of his Trump Plaza Hotel not to hire black employees, on the basis that, in his words, "laziness is a trait in blacks", and refused to hire black accountants, saying: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day." Prior to running for office, Trump did not contest these claims; instead, in an interview he decided to give to that bastion of Christian virtues, Playboy Magazine, he said that "[t]he stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true".
When meeting with the Republican Jewish Coalition, Trump's speech -- the speeches he's so proud to claim as his own candid thoughts -- played on Jewish racial stereotypes, saying: "“Look, I’m a negotiator like you folks; we’re negotiators”, and “I know why you’re not going to support me. You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money."
At some point, when repeated enough, the behavioral patterns have to be acknowledged as the overflow of the heart rather than simple "careless remarks".
But this is less important to Grudem here than Trump's oft-touted business acumen. It is disappointing to see a discerning author like Grudem justify moral bankruptcy on the basis of financial success. Should we likewise applaud Joel Osteen or Creflo Dollar for his financial gains at others' expense? And what of the reports that Trump's financial success is not actually what it's claimed, as he's failed several businesses and showed million-dollar losses over time?
Finally, after simply Trump's unrepentant patterns of willful sinful behavior as just inconsequential, Grudem arrives at what seems to be his main point: Christians should vote in what is best for the nation, and Trump is what is best for the nation.
Can I suggest that perhaps such a morally-bankrupt leader, who stands so proudly opposite every fruit of the Spirit, might not be what's best for America?
Perhaps it is not best for America to have the first president whom our closest international allies and neighbors have held votes over whether they should ban him? (first the UK: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/18/europe/uk-parliament-debates-trump-ban/, then Canada: http://www.hotglobalnews.com/donald-trump-banned-from-entering-canada/, then Mexico: http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2016/03/03/3756136/mexico-trump-ban/)
Perhaps it is not best for America to elect someone who causes us to be in bad standing with those countries closest to us in allegiance and geography.
Furthermore, "seek[ing] the welfare of the city" into which God has sent us (Jeremiah 29:7, which Grudem quotes) must be balanced with the Biblical conviction held by the Apostles that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We should, as Christians, not seek to appoint leadership that would place those two mandates in conflict. Doing so would be to willfully choose what is worst for America, and would be to publicly testify that Christlikeness is less important than political partisanship.
Indeed, much of the rest of this article can be summarized as "Democrats are bad, and Trump is not a Democrat, so he should win." May I posit that we are called to make disciples of all nations, not Republicans of all Americans?
And indeed, on the issues Grudem lists against Democrats that are actually moral issues (abortion, rejection of God's design in gender, and religious liberty), Trump is 0 for 3 at best.
His position on abortion changes by the day, too often to be consistent. Before seeking to appeal to a Republican electorate, he was, in his words, "very pro-choice" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHAHKGP10yc&feature=youtu.be) More recently, in as little as a 3-day span in March of this year, while trying to figure out what Americans who "were raised in Iowa" (as he put it in the above interview) might want to hear, he bounced around the different sides of the issue 5 times before he felt like he had properly signalled the position that would garner him the most votes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/
And on the issue of God's design for humanity as male and female: Trump has not supported this notion. This is an easy issue to mistake, because again he has at one point signalled opposition to this matter, though more weakly than his brief signalling of opposition to abortion. Currently, he has condemned the legislation that passed in North Carolina to reinforce this two-gender design in at least the issue of public bathrooms, saying "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. There has been so little trouble, and the problem with what happened in North Carolina is the strife and the economic punishment that they're taking. So I would say that's probably the best way." (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/opinions/trump-transgender-bathrooms-opinion-cupp/)
Note what he says here: people should use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. This should not be mistaken for a ringing endorsement of God's design. And the only issue he saw with the opposition to the North Carolina bill was, reflecting Trump's value system, the "economic punishment that they're taking."
And on the issue of religious liberty, Trump is the only candidate in this election to advocate various government mandates persecuting both citizens and immigration applicants on the basis of a religious test. Just because the state-opposed-religion of today happens to be Islam instead of Christianity does not prevent the very-likely outcome that an increasingly-secular government with legal precedent and empowerment to oppose any religion will oppose Christianity when popular political issues (like same-sex marriage) find public opinion against Christians.
Sadly, Grudem then transitions to the tired argument that we must support Trump because of the effect a Hillary presidency would have on the Supreme Court. He starts with a "deadpool" of sorts, almost salivating over the idea that sitting Supreme Court Justices may be near the ends of their lives. It's a twisted, un-Christlike sort of optimism that finds hope in counting down until the death of other sinners.
Grudem cites abortion law, marriage law, and religious liberty as issues where a Supreme Court justice appointed by Hillary would oppose Biblical Christianity. And indeed, he's probably right about that.
But given the record I've already outlined, he's mistaken to think that Trump, in a bid for popularity or based on his own few convictions, would not appoint an equally-morally-repugnant justice.
I would continue, but I suspect I'm running out of space on Facebook, and I think the point is clear: I find this article a disappointing defense of a man whose actions show an outspoken, unrepentant love of sin. Grudem sadly has chosen to "call evil good".
Between the choice of Hillary and Trump, I don't think it's a question of the lesser of two evils, because I don't think either is lesser an evil than the other. And I don't think it is morally defensible -- let alone "morally good" -- to endorse voting for Donald Trump.