You can almost see Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance twisting herself in knots as you read her commentary at The Christian Post. In it, she details a meeting between evangelical leaders and Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump. Like so many who have pledged their support to the candidate, she feels compelled to rationalize her choice at length. It’s him or Hillary, the logic goes. When you spend that much time trying to convince me, I begin to think that you’re really trying to convince yourself.
Despite her hopeful intentions, Nance’s account of the meeting comes off as awkward and inauthentic, which is exactly what you would expect given everything we know about Trump. Here’s how Nance describes the encounter:
At that point in the program, I was asked to join a select number of leaders backstage for a private meeting with Donald Trump. He arrived late and, after a warm introduction by Dr. Ben Carson, spent a few minutes talking about the need for Evangelical leaders to speak up on the election. He assured the group that he understood the cultural shift that now has gone from post-Christian to anti-Christian and vowed to work to support our rights.
He lapsed at one point into the glib pol that gets him into trouble by flippantly suggesting we shouldn’t pray for the president. Again, his understanding of Scripture is minuscule. The room, again, was warm and receptive after some brief eye rolling; with the exception of that one stumble, he did a great job overall.
It reads like a sympathetic journal from a hostage suffering Stockholm syndrome. The guy starts in with what they can do for him, offers passing assurance that he might do something for them in return, then suggests they dispense with a critical aspect of their theology. And this was “a great job overall”?
In light of James Dobson’s recent assertion that Trump has accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior, I cling to the slim hope that such a profession proves genuine. Nothing would be better for the country at this point. It would provide a reason to support him, rather than a rationalization.