Nancy French: Romney wasn’t Christian enough for some Republicans. Somehow, Trump still is. | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Nancy French: Romney wasn’t Christian enough for some Republicans. Somehow, Trump still is.

The Washington Post
1072561_web1_romney
AP
Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, arrives for a Senate policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 12, 2019.

When Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, ran for president in the 2008 GOP primary, many evangelical Christian voters were reluctant – putting it mildly – to support him, because of his membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

One of Romney’s opponents, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, exploited this hesitance by trying to instill fear about the differences between himself and Romney: “Don’t Mormons,” Huckabee trolled in a New York Times Magazine interview, “believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” (Though real theological differences exist, that was not one of them.) At the 2007 Values Voter Summit, Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, told the crowd they ought to back a candidate who speaks “the language of Zion as a mother tongue.”

I was there that day, and swallowed hard as the crowd, full of anti-Romney fervor, cheered. Was this what Christians were about? Making theology a political litmus test struck me as terribly misguided, especially since Christians, more and more, find ourselves at the short of end of that stick. Yet, when this evangelical crowd had a chance to mock a good man for his beliefs, they relished the opportunity.

My husband and I, members of the Presbyterian Church of America and Republicans at the time, should’ve been welcomed by the “values” voters. After getting to know Romney and his wife Ann Romney, when I worked on a book project with her in 2007, we threw our support behind them and suddenly became the target of evangelical ire. One political activist saw me wearing a Romney campaign hat and angrily said, “You obviously don’t love America,” leaving me in near tears, since my husband was just days from deploying to Iraq. She would later become a vocal Trump supporter.

Romney won the GOP nomination four years later, but neither he nor Huckabee ever became president. Nearly a decade later, evangelical Republican voters embraced Donald Trump despite his well-documented flaws, sins and lack of repentance. Throughout his career, Romney has stood for strong moral values, sometimes at great personal and political cost, but he’s never been Christian enough for some Republicans. Somehow, after everything we’ve seen, President Donald Trump still is.

Last week, Romney reacted to the findings in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report with disgust. One might even describe it as righteous indignation. He conceded that Mueller found no basis to charge the president with a federal crime, but tweeted that he was “sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the President.” It’s the response you would expect from a political leader, of any or no faith, who holds honesty and accountability as important civic values. Yet few evangelical leaders expressed any outrage, or even mild disappointment.

In fact, Huckabee lashed out at Romney, not Trump, tweeting that it “makes me sick that you got GOP nomination and could have been POTUS” – a statement that seeks both to diminish the president’s moral accountability and undermine anyone trying to hold the president to account. It’s a cheap shot implying the only thing we should expect from our leaders is that they walk narrowly within the confines of the law, and not that they should be held to a higher, or even basic, moral standard. It also reveals the insincerity with which Huckabee and others once claimed that Christian values should be central in the selection of a president.

Isaiah 5:20 speaks directly to Huckabee and the rest of Trump’s evangelical defenders: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Their “mother tongue,” it turned out, wasn’t the “language of Zion,” but crass expediency, molding their definition of Christian values to suit their needs in a quest for power over principle.

Take, for instance, Robert Jeffress, an influential pastor of a Dallas megachurch. “Do we want a candidate who is a good, moral person,” he asked at the 2011 Values Voter Summit, “or one who is a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ?” He said it was “imperative to vote for a Christian” and said voting for Romney would give credibility to a “cult.” Televangelist Bill Keller said that “a Romney election will help insure at least 1 million souls will burn in hell.”

At the time, too few evangelical leaders denounced this fearful, denigrating rhetoric (though Jeffress, in calculating fashion, came around to endorsing Romney in the general election, saying President Barack Obama “opposes Biblical principles”) and some Christians sat it out, holding that their religious views prohibited them from supporting anyone but the holiest of candidates. But four years later, when Trump erupted onto the political scene, the same leaders abandoned their religious litmus tests faster than you could say “grab ‘em by the p——.”

Huckabee endorsed Trump in 2016, and his daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, serves as Trump’s White House press secretary. She told the Christian Broadcast Network earlier this year that God “wanted Donald Trump to become president” because he supported “a lot of the things that people of faith really care about.” And while truth is one of the things that, presumably, Christians really care about, she admitted to Mueller that “in the heat of the moment,” she made up disparaging information about former FBI director James Comey as an excuse for his firing.

Jeffress became a Trump apologist, even defending Trump after Michael Cohen alleged that Trump was aware Cohen paid hush-money to mistresses on Trump’s behalf. When Trump bemoaned immigrants coming from what he reportedly described as “s—-hole countries,” Jeffress was offended only by Trump’s profanity, not his heartless xenophobia, saying, “Apart from the vocabulary attributed to him, President Trump is right on target in his sentiment.”

Yet Trump’s sentiments, actions and character are opposed to the biblical values these evangelicals claimed to demand in a candidate. Instead of striving to be “poor in spirit,” as Matthew 5:3 commends, he talks endlessly about his material wealth. Instead of being respectful, he is arrogant. Instead of thirsting for righteousness, he has bragged about his affairs. Instead of being a peacemaker, he chooses words that polarize and divide. Instead of respecting women, he has gleefully described himself as a sexual assaulter. Instead of accepting God’s forgiveness, he claims he doesn’t need it.

If evangelical leaders really demanded Christian values in their president, they’d stop calling evil good and good evil. They might also be ashamed that LDS Romney stands up for Christian values more than Trump and his sycophants combined.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.