Search this blog

Wayne Grudem made quite a splash with his recent description of Donald Trump as a “morally good choice” for evangelical voters. Unlike many of Trump’s so-called “evangelical” supporters, Grudem really is an evangelical, and a formidable one at that. This is what makes his column worth noticing.

I want to preface my response to Professor Grudem by saying that, amid the madness of the 2016 election cycle, we evangelicals need to remember that we are part of a much bigger, longer-lasting movement. It would be awful if we ended up with a lousy president (which it seems we will) and tear one another to pieces in the process! I respect Professor Grudem, and he is correct that Christians will have to be patient with one another when we decide to make a different choices about our preferred candidates (or decide not to choose).

Still, I don’t think it is overstating the matter that this election represents a hinge moment for evangelicals in America. Will we show that we are willing to break with the GOP over matters of conscience, or that we are just errand boys for the Republican Party?

Most of Professor Grudem’s column is a pretty conventional argument for holding our nose and voting for Trump. The most compelling part, as usual, is that IF we can assume that Trump would nominate good Supreme Court judges, then at least the Court would be in better shape at the end of his presidency.

That’s a pretty big “if,” given what else we have to swallow with Trump. I have no idea what he would actually do with regard to judges, and his past behavior gives me little reason to trust his word on most any subject.

What we do know is that Trump is the crudest, most uninformed candidate in the history of major presidential contenders. Whether he is actually a misogynist or a racist is unclear (what makes someone an honest-to-goodness “racist”?). But it is clear that he has a long history of misogynistic and racist comments, on which he typically doubles down when challenged.

(I should say, by the way, that I absolutely do not support Hillary Clinton as an alternative to Trump. Just what we know about her views on abortion and the rights of conscience should disqualify her, in my opinion, as a political option for Christians.)

My friend Matthew Franck of The Witherspoon Institute has put it well, in the best column I have read on the Trump option as the “lesser of two evils.”

Was there ever a candidate more obviously unqualified for high public office, as measured by his dearth of relevant knowledge and experience, his willfulness and self-absorption, his compulsive lying and inconsistency, his manipulative using of other people, his smash-mouth rhetoric and low character? For anyone professing conservative principles, the first problem with Trump is that he is not one of us, has never been one of us, shows no sign or capacity of becoming one of us, and hardly cares to pretend to be one of us. Even "what about the Supreme Court?" has no grip on my conscience when I try to imagine Donald Trump in the Oval Office. I cannot trust him to choose judicial nominees wisely, and there are other things whose cumulative weight is greater even than this variable.

We haven't even the consolation of thinking of Trump as a certain kind of Republican who is not actually conservative but who at least recognizes our vocabulary when he hears it. No, Trump would not know a conservative principle if it kicked him in the shins. This is a nominee who, in my estimation, cannot earn my vote even as a "lesser evil" or an "at least he's not Hillary" candidate. I waver between believing that his defeat would be the worst thing to happen to our country and believing that his victory would be.

Evangelical friends, Donald Trump is not a “flawed but tolerable” option. As a presidential candidate, he falls well below an acceptable moral and prudential threshold. In order to pick a “lesser of two evils” candidate for president, one of them would have to be a morally responsible choice. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are offering us such a choice in 2016.


The many responses to Grudem include:

[Update 10/10/2016]: Wayne Grudem retracted his endorsement of Trump.

View Comments


78 thoughts on “Wayne Grudem, Evangelicals, and the Trump Option”

  1. Missy M says:

    Wayne Grudem makes the mistake as many are of trying to make this about some type of moral choice when the Scriptures provide no such constraints. It is a reasonable and better choice to vite for Trump because Hillary Clinton is committed to the destruction of life in the womb the destruction of the Second Amendment to radicalizing the Supreme Court which will further attack Christian expression resulting in the persecution, accelerated persecution, of Christians and she is for a grossly enlarged welfare state supported by the heavy socialist taxation of business under which free enterprise and capitalism suffers greatly and our way of life is continuously obliterated where we can no longer be the power of freedom in the world because we will not have the resources necessary nor the political will to keep our military at a robust level.

    But maybe more troubling is your willingness to refer to Mr. Trump as a racist and misogynist. This is irresponsible at best because his record his 40 years of business practice shows otherwise in which no such accusations were leveled against him. But to the point of the article, when you refer to Mr. Trump as uninformed are you aware of the number of international Leaders with whom he has had some relationship? He is more aware of international Affairs than you understand or suggest. As well he has repeatedly testified to Congress regarding economic concerns both nationally and internationally.

    Hillary Clinton has a record of corruption beginning with her work with a Watergate committee where she was dismissed as a pathological liar and it hasn’t stopped from there. Just yesterday the Atlantic magazine a far-left Democrat sympathizing magazine published an article regarding why Hillary cannot stop lying .

    The worst you have from Donald Trump is an aggressive businessman who can be crass and can be obnoxious but has won in the field of which he has practiced and has had the admiration of his peers.

    The truth is I don’t think many of you really know much about Donald Trump beyond your own posturing and the anecdotes provided by the leftist media and you have been foolish enough to buy into that.

    1. Philmonomer says:

      But maybe more troubling is your willingness to refer to Mr. Trump as a racist and misogynist. This is irresponsible at best because his record his 40 years of business practice shows otherwise in which no such accusations were leveled against him.

      This is not true. There are numerous accusations of Donald’s Trumps racism. For example, he was accused of not renting to Blacks, and he was accused of not letting Blacks be blackjack dealers at his casinos, etc.

      1. Missy M says:

        We, as Christians, do not rashly and without careful adjudication based on overwhelming evidence seek to attach unflattering and salacious labels onto men. You have provided two anecdotal samples and this is your basis for such labels in light of his 40 years of work? Tsk tsk.

        And to those two anecdotal citations, the 1st was an accusation against his father Fred, not Donald. Donald did later own the property solo and co-owned it before that with his Dad but did not manage it early in his career. It was under Fred’s management in which the accusation was made but never proven.
        The accusation about the Blackjack dealers was proven to be unfounded.

        But again, what is most important is that we be, as Christians, so very careful before we would dare, before God, knowing we must answer for such things, assign to men, labels which are damning and where their life’s work does not in any significant way reflect defamatory tags.

        1. SlowBro says:

          O that Grudem would consider the words of Daniel 2:21, “[God] removes kings and sets up kings.” That verse tells me that ANY third party candidate, no matter how seemingly unlikely they are to be elected today, no matter how little-known, could be elected into office in November. Let’s choose a God-fearing man. (I can recommend one if you’re interested.)

      2. Tim Bushong says:

        Accused is not even close to convicted. What happened innocent until proven guilty?

    2. Nathanael says:

      “But maybe more troubling is your willingness to refer to Mr. Trump as a racist and misogynist.”

      The man owns a strip club. He is self-evidently a misogynist.

      1. Missy M says:

        You need to go back and do your homework. Donald Trump has never owned or operated a strip club. Donald Trump did own Trump Taj Mahal at one time but it went into bankruptcy and he was no longer associated with it but it kept his name and opened a strip club after the bankruptcy was settled and he had sold the property. He has never owned a strip club and has never operated one you should be careful of such salacious accusations.

        1. Kamilla says:

          His name is on it, he “owns” in all but law.

          There is no doubt Trump is a misogynist, see Matthew 12:34. A man who doesn’t already have it in his heart doesn’t go off n a tirade about women bleeding. He doesn’t discard one wife after another, bragging about his infidelities on the way, and he does not call out women for charging their former boss with sexual harassment because he is a “great guy” who “helped their careers”!

          For crying out loud, if that isn’t misogyny, nothing else.

          Because he treats women well in one aspect of life does not mean he’s not actually a misogynist. It might just mean he’s a savvy businessman.

          How you and, I am afraid I have to include Dr. Kidd in this, can attempt to deny his misogyny beggars belief.

          Here is another column by David French to consider:

          1. Kamilla says:

            No edit function and I need to make a correction:

            For crying out loud, if that isn’t misogyny, nothing is.

        2. Cliff says:

          Missy, Please don’t spread untruths. Mr. Trump not only owned a strip club and built it. Here is a link to back up that very common knowledge.

          1. Missy M says:

            You can Snopes all you want (you do know they are left-wingers and have been caught numerous times with untrue reports) but Hillary was fired by Zeifman for unethical behavior.

            1. Nondescript says:

              Please see (“…the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his non-voting Canadian wife. …”)

    3. john mosher says:

      Well said. I haven’t seen anyone who has known Trump for any length of time who would claim he is a racist. I do think he has been shown to be a misogynist. But the we know exactly who Hillary will appoint to the SCOTUS and to the lessor courts. Trump could certainly make some bad appointments but at least, In my opinion, there is a chance he could appoint conservative justices.

      On another matter, it would seem that many of the so called”evangelical leaders” and that includes those on the TGC site who had no problem when McCain, Romney etc. were pushed down our throats.

    4. Ted says:

      If you want to lament that people have not done their homework on Donald Trump, you should do your own homework: Hillary was not dismissed from a Watergate committee. If you check up on the allegations against her, you will find one false accusation after another.

      1. Missy M says:

        Again, Zeifman fired her for unethical behavior. Snopes is a left-winger propaganda source which has been caught numerous times with untrue and inaccurate information coincidentally favoring look leftists.

    5. Jeb says:

      “….are you aware of the number of international Leaders with whom he has had some relationship?”
      Apparently Trump doesn’t even know:

    6. mc says:

      MIssy M, you said “But maybe more troubling is your willingness to refer to Mr. Trump as a racist and misogynist. This is irresponsible at best because his record his 40 years of business practice shows otherwise in which no such accusations were leveled against him.”

      His public statements during his campaign give proof enough of Trump’s racist and misogynistic views. That is straight from his mouth. And his comments in interviews on international affairs reveals a shameful level of ignorance for someone aspiring to be the president. And the number of lawsuits directed at Trump for his many, many questionable business practices does not leave me thinking he thought of as a respectible businessman. As for labeling others, have you not done the same with Hilary?

    7. Breadforthieves says:

      The post didn’t accuse Trump of being racist and mysoginist. He said it was unclear.

      Yes, everyone’s “leftist.” Trump didn’t actually insult POW’s & the family of a fallen US soldier, suggest abandoning NATO allies to Russia, or say the two of the three fundamental roles of federal gov’t are health care and education. Those are all falsehoods, made up by a leftist conspiracy. In the media. Including The National Review, which trashes Trump every single day in my news feed.

    8. Gary says:

      I find it troubling that many Christians are jumping to conclusions on current events and political candidates instead of doing their due diligence and examining the arguments carefully. If we have to rely on headlines and cherrypicking rather than careful fact-finding and simple verification to formulate our opinions, we greatly diminish our reputation as stewards of the truth. How can we claim on one hand we ought to examine the Scriptures as carefully as the Bereans did yet on the other hand fail to apply that rigor to what’s happening in the world around us? Please think about this, before calling names and affixing labels unbefitting of Trump, who does have concerning, yet unrelated character issues.

      All I will say is that with Trump, we won’t know what we’ll get in terms of policy; with Clinton, we will. For example, even if Trump doesn’t do as he promised with regards to appointing conservative Justices, I will rest knowing that choosing Clinton would have merely guaranteed the same result. No, I don’t like either of those choices but a 3rd party is far too late; maybe we can get the momentum going for a strong Republican/3rd party candidate by 2020, but for now the Christian vote for 2016 will either help or hamper the liberties we hold dear based on these two candidates.

      1. Nondescript says:

        There’s no guarantee that Mr. Trump will appoint men/women at least as bad as those Mrs. Clinton would select. Unfortunately, given his numerous statements (all you have to do is perform a few web searches and then select reasonably reliable sources; and then see if they’re supported by other reasonably reliable sources) the chances are good that his choices will be far worse.

        A related, and far more serious, concern is that he’s in the mold of a “strongman.” i.e., similar to Mussolini and Hitler. And I’m not being “shrill” when I state that. Just do a few web searches…

  2. lori says:

    I realize that, for some reason, the idea of “changing hearts and minds” has become anathema to many in the pro-life movement, and judicial fiat seems the only way to move forward. However, the reality is that, until the hearts and minds of more Americans change, we will not see any substantial change to abortion laws. Even if Roe were overturned tomorrow, many states would continue to allow abortion–perhaps even more freely than Roe does–and women wanting an abortion could simply travel to seek one. Passing a constitutional amendment that protects fetal life would not happen with the American public as divided as it is.

    I don’t think that people like Grudem are taking seriously the kind of witness that endorsing Trump is. It makes pro-life people seem like the worst stereotypes pro-choice people attribute to them: people who care only for life within the womb but care little-to-nothing for born people, especially women and minorities.

    I was until the last couple of years one of the many, many people who are privately pro-life (we would never have an abortion ourselves and we see it as a moral tragedy) but politically pro-choice (and I was very, very avidly politically pro-choice). I came around to the position that laws against abortion would be a moral good only through the witness and arguments of Christians who clearly cared about women and children and the least of these in society.

    Pro-lifers supporting Trump might feel they are fighting the good fight in the courts but in reality they will be striking a blow against their cause in the battle for hearts and minds. Many Americans, including those who are personally quite sympathetic to the pro-life cause, feel the movement is anti-woman, anti-minority, and anti-poor. Throwing support behind a crass, racist misogynist in the name of the “pro-life” movement only reinforces that stereotype and will make it harder to create the broad pro-life consensus, that transcends parties and political labels, that is needed and that we should seek.

    1. Adam Cates says:

      Lori, thanks for your comment. I was greatly encouraged about what you said concerning changing hearts and minds.

  3. Andy says:

    “first problem with is that he is not one of us, has never been one of us, shows no sign or capacity of becoming one of us, and hardly cares to pretend to be one of us.”

    I love you Evangelicals but I, along with a lot of others, are not one of you either. It’s not that I don’t want to be exactly, but I don’t think I’m good enough for you either; which is ok I guess. The thing about Trump, love him, hate him, think he’s repulsive or whatever is that he’s the guy I often see in the mirror. I don’t often like the reflection but I know who he is at least.

    1. Tom Agnew says:

      Just for clarity sake, the quote you mentioned about “being one of us” is not about being evangelical. It’s about being a true conservative in the classical sense.

  4. John says:

    In order to pick a “lesser of two evils” candidate for president, one of them would have to be a morally responsible choice

    No, it simply means one is less evil. We know for certain one of the candidates will tear at every piece of the remaining Judeo/Christian fabric possible.

    1. John says:

      Your whitewashing of Trump’s stupidity and depravity is just as big a problem.

    2. John Trowbridge says:

      I seriously doubt that Stalin would be a more normal choice than Hitler. It is more moral to not vote than to know kindly vote for evil. And a Donald Trump has flatly said he will not change any abortion laws so there is literally zero reason for Christians to vote for him.

  5. Cindi Dennis says:

    Please demonstrate for us what IS the appropriate moral and prudential threshold to be elected to the presidency rather than just telling us that Mr. Trump does not meet it.

    1. Amy says:

      Yes. I agree Cindi. I keep reading articles like this, and they end with the same non-solution. Whether I agree with Grudem’s position or not, at least he put forth a suggestion and provided his reasoning for landing there.

  6. NobleFreedman says:

    If you didn’t want him as the nominee you should have worked harder during the primaries.

    Anyone who took ethics realizes that Grudem is espousing Graded Absolutism. It arguably is the most biblical ethics framework for dealing with guilt and responsibility. Norman Geisler’s “Christian Ethics” does the best job of explaining it. This is not holding your nose and voting Trump with your eyes closed. This is full fledged loving your neighbor (and your progeny) by voting for Trump with your eyes WIDE OPEN. The anti-thesis is that it is NOT loving to allow a “leftist” ascend to the Presidency unchecked and CLOSING your eyes to their agenda.

    The left is anti-human in all aspects of its ideology. There is an old Hebrew saying “what is certain is certain” – it is certain where the “leftist” want to take the country. It is uncertain what the Donald will do….However, it is BETTER to choose the uncertain over the certain. Sorry Thabiti.

    Moore and others need to deal with their “conflicting absolutisim” and stop playing the guilt/conscience card so heavy on their followers. It is for freedom we have been set free. There is no guilt to be had when we act in love. 


    1. Rick says:

      Thank you, NobleFreedman, for your comments, but I am afraid the “rugged individualism” of Western thought has so invaded the American Church that we can no longer embrace a “herd mentality” where we act on what will be good. We are so caught up in our individual walk with Christ that we can’t see beyond our own needs.

      Yes, it is repugnant to think about endorsing a candidate who does not seem to represent our morals, values, and faith. That seems to hold true for every candidate left standing. As you point out, we know what is certain with Hillary. We have “hope” that Trump will follow through with his promises to protect and support what we value. All other candidates have no chance to win the White House. Not voting at all is an unproductive and likely negative response. It is down to Hillary and Trump. There is no political savior coming to rescue us from the certainty that one of them will be our President. Maybe our true Savior will return before November. I hope so.

      1. Rick says:

        edit: . . . that we can no longer embrace a “herd mentality” where we act on what will be good [for all].

    2. John Trowbridge says:

      That is only true if the “uncertain” you’re referring to could potentially lead to a positive. If the “uncertain” is still an equally or perhaps worse option, then we have no reason to say it is better to choose the uncertain. We are making the argument that, no matter what the outcome, Trump’s uncertainty is between very bad and extremely bad whereas Hillary’s is predictably very bad. Given the man’s character and platform, there is no reason to suggest at all that he would ever do any real good for the country and this it is our moral obligation to NOT vote for him.

    3. LInda A Crutchfield says:

      Super helpful most comments about Trump seem to be liberal talking points

  7. Anthony says:

    As our family of believers continue to struggle through the political challenges here in the US, just a couple of prayerfully encouraging remarks: Let’s continue to pray for the conversion of any politician who presently is a lost soul. And before we do that, consider our own need to look in the mirror with a contrite heart. Have we spent as much time examining ourselves as we have others? I understand the need to speak out, but let’s stay within the parameters of Ephesians 4:29-32. God is in control. Blessings.

  8. Thank you, Thomas! I had an extremely adverse reaction to Grudem’s fundamental premise, wherein he asserts “if someone votes for a write-in [or 3rd party] candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?”

    I wrote a response that I hope provides at least a few reasons why this premise is unfounded, and therefore frees the Christian from the supposed “moral obligation” to vote for Donald Trump this fall:

  9. Bobby says:

    I appreciated Grudem’s article and find myself disappointed that fellow Christians feel that they have to distance themselves from Trump based on an imaginary moral high ground.

    The fact is that we are all sinners and there is no candidate that isn’t “flawed”. It is nonsensical to me for a Christian to argue that a candidate does not meet a moral standard to be president while at the same time not defining that standard and also indirectly supporting a liberal agenda that promotes the murder of innocent babies. If there were ever a “moral standard” for candidacy for president, their position on abortion would be it.

    I personally think that believers using this “moral standard” excuse simply have their heads have fallen victim to the power of a politically correct media.

    1. Bob says:

      amen doug.

    2. John says:

      Spot on.

  10. doug sayers says:

    “Still, I don’t think it is overstating the matter that this election represents a hinge moment for evangelicals in America. ”

    I’m afraid it is overstating the matter, Thomas. If you live long enough and pay attention someone is always calling something a hinge or watershed moment of hyperbolic magnitude. We’ve been on the brink of many kinds of disasters my entire lifetime. Institutional Christianity and those who make a nice living off the Gospel may be in trouble but the invisible church will be fine. They don’t trust in princes or presidents.

    Perhaps we are getting to the place in America where we will actually have to tell people to count the cost before deciding to follow Jesus.

  11. JOHN THYBAULT says:

    As a Christian, one of my major concerns is that if a democrat becomes our next president it is certain that the LGBT agenda will be fueled forward. One of the next logical steps in that agenda is to restrict government subsidized student loans to only those institutions that comply with this belief and practice. It that happens there will be many Seminaries and Bible Colleges that will experience a decrease in enrollments resulting a threatening, if not terminal, drop in funding. Another logical step forward in their anti-Christ agenda will be to follow the lead of Canada making the public denouncement of sexual perversion illegal and punishable by fines and imprisonment. We must keep in mind that our invisible enemy is a master of deceit whose ultimate objective is to stop the clear communication of the Scriptures so that sinners might be saved and Christians discipled.

    1. Jonesie says:

      Trump is a threat to the republic, and you’re worried about homosexual agendas, which is a societal inevitability at this point. Which is the greater threat?

  12. David Medina says:

    In order to believe that Trump will do what the platform says you would have to close your eyes and ears and make an extreme leap of faith that Trump can be trusted and that he will honor his word. It has been proven that he only keep his word when it suites him. There is no good choices, except to rest in the fact that God is sovereign.

    In my opinion, Trump and Hilary are both a sign of social and moral decay that prevail in America and makes even more urgent the mission of the Church.

  13. Desmond says:

    Excellent article Dr. Kidd. Your arguments are solid. I have come to the same conclusion that you have about Trump not being an acceptable option. Yesterday, I came across an excellent blog post by Matthew Loftus suggesting that Evangelicals consider the American Solidarity Party:

    1. Lois says:

      We are in the era of post politics. Trump gets that. He is the first in this new era. He’s pushing the limits for sure.
      This article will be helpful to some.

  14. John Trowbridge says:

    We will be judged by what evil we do, but also for the approval we give for the evil done by others. Those who vote for Trump are approving of, and will be this judged by, the evil that he does. This should cause us to pause before we vote based on “uncertainty.”

  15. David Stephens says:

    I’m troubled by much of what I read about this election from both sides. This past month as I read through Samuel and Kings, I was struck at how flawed the Kings of Judea/Israel were. Would we have voted for David as our president/king? Remember that even after they had a choice, Israel didn’t choose him for 7 more years. They didn’t like his personality or what he was not their guy (Saul’s family was). Would some of the recorded activities of David (after he become king), disqualify him from office? Did God use Nebuchadnezzar? Didn’t he give him advisors like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah? Could Mike Pence be that for Nebuchadezzar, along with others in the administration? Seems like a lot of hate for whom God may choose. Could Donald Tump write a modern Daniel 4? Go forward in time to next year and assume that Trump wins. Re-read that article and think about what the author is writing about the leader that God chose to lead our country. I would never choose Trump to be my pastor, but that is not what I am voting for. I recently visited the Hermitage and Springfield, IL and based on what I read at those 2 presidential museums, the public said that both men were unqualified and not adored by the masses during the election cycle and during most of their presidencies. So to claim that Trump is the least qualified presidential candidate seems like a bit of exaggeration. I have heard for years pastors say that it is God’s will or at least our duty to country that we vote. Now some of those same pastors say that they will abstain because they don’t like the choices.

    My hope is in God. I choose to vote for the platform that is closest to what I believe God shows us in his Word. I believe that Mike Pence can be Daniel to our modern Nebuchadnezzar. We should consider the strong words that we are writing/saying about God’s anointed heads of state, whether these people are President Obama, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. God gives us government leaders for our good in his economy. Instead of writing articles of hyperbole and exaggeration, pen letter of prayer for Mr Trump. Pray that he will be saved. Pray for God’s wisdom in his mind and a muzzle for his mouth :-). Pray that Mike Pence’s good works will be seen by the Trump campaign and millions of Americans and that God will be glorified by what He can accomplish. Pray for wisdom in our own choices locally. Pray because God’s will will be accomplished.

  16. I am concerned that Dr. Grudem is making voting for Trump morally obligatory–the failure to do is sin! He may have been more persuasive had he tried to argue for the moral permissibility of voting for Trump. Also, some of his use of Scripture is faulty. I address these issues in a blog post:

  17. Larissa says:

    I find it hypocritical and concerning that many Christians (both leaders and the common folk) are disputing Wayne Grudem’s article about Trump, and yet don’t say one thing about Thabiti Anyabwile’s article stating that Hillary is “the lesser of two evils” and basically endorsing her. Can someone please explain this to me?? Neither Trump or Hillary are great options. It’s sickening that somehow we’ve reached this point. However, voting for a Democrat is voting for Democratic values, such as abortion, advancing LGBTQ agendas, attacks on religious (Christian) freedoms, etc. I’m not one to say that you’re not a Christian if you vote for Hillary. But I honestly don’t know how a Christian could stand before God (here and on that final Day) with the blood of millions of unborn babies on their heads. God help us all this election season!

  18. Jonathan McGuire says:

    As almost a pre-amble to his column, Grudem writes, “American citizens need patience with each other in this difficult political season. Close friends are inevitably going to make different decisions about the election. We still need to respect each other and thank God that we live in a democracy with freedom to differ about politics. And we need to keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences. This is my contribution to that discussion.”

    He then proceeds to lay out in public the result of his own internal process in deciding what he will do in November.

    What is striking is not the public disagreements with Grudem. This is healthy as most public engagement is. Rather, the problem is how strident and dismissive so many of Grudem’s fellow evangelical luminaries have been towards him. I’ve read 5 public responses (including this one) and all of them are either borderline or full out attacks on Grudem himself (Eric Erickson’s attempt at satire might be one of the worst things I’ve read this year).

    The message is clear: ‘stick with the herd or we’ll seek to destroy you.’

    That’s probably not the witness enhance we were going for was it?

  19. Allen says:

    Since we are talking moral clarity, and citing Dennis Prager , here is his last post.
    I also think we need to credit Thabiti Anyabwile for giving us a template for thinking about both candidates through Starting with the June 6 post. But I must admit that using his reasoning and template and researching what both sides were saying, I ended up solidly Trump.

    We are all moral agents, and have to make moral decision, based on the Bible and our faith. In many cases, especially during the primary season this was easy. But once past that we are face two flawed candidates or perhaps one flawed and one with major character issues. We ask ourselves where do we go from there? Everyone agrees that a choice has to be made, and it is a difficult choice. I appreciate this blog and Dr. Grudem’s article for helping give us a pathway and means to make such a choice whether we reach the same conclusion or not.

    There are some people I will read and consider well just by reputation alone, and thoroughness and logic with which they cover things. I put Dr. Grudem solidly in that camp, and would normally add credence to him and give him a little bump just because of who he is and what he has written. Also like a student with a master, the respect for the author will add some deference even if my gut would sometimes say differently.

    I am more comfortable than some with probabilities and possibilities and this is a case of trying to guess greater chance of such and such good and bad happening with each candidate and their party if they keep their promises or continue to do what they have done in the past. I try to go from the big picture down to personal details top down rather then bottom up. I look at a Hillary administration as a radical expansion of the Obama administration and a radical departure in many ways from the first Clinton administration and a Trump/Pence/Ryan administration as a possible correction or reversal of the present administration and its “achievements”.

    Thank you all for encouraging a moral decision, and going in and making choices and trying to provide a template for other believers to make the choice especially since it is not as easy or clear cut as we would like.

    I have tended to talk too much of the earthly kingdom and not enough about the heavenly kingdom. There is one King we all serve, even our ballot will one way or another be part of that service. But this is the big Kingdom and one hope for our country. America needs revival much much more than either a republican or democrat controlled government. Whoever our next President is it is God’s throne that is important as well keeping him on the throne and expanding his kingdom. This is where our true hope lies while the earthly government has some value this is where our focus must always be, and that is something everyone agrees on. If you must make a choice, please look at Trump and Clinton, the Republican and Democratic platforms through this light. Are they likely to or at least promising to help more or hinder more this Kingdom and those who are part of it.

    Matthew 6:19-34

    “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

    “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

    “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

    “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life ?

    “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.


  20. Ted says:

    If you vote for Clinton, you will get the chance to vote for someone else in four years; you may not like what she does, but she follows the rules of democratic politics. Trump is already suggesting that if he loses it will be because the vote is rigged – which would seem to mean that a Clinton victory is by definition illegitimate and should be resisted. Who knows how many people will take him up on that? Especially ones who have spent the last eight years believing that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim whose presidency is also illegitimate? A man who is willing to attack American democracy itself if he does not get his way, a man willing to ally himself with white supremacists, a man who believes that only he can save the country, is not a man to be trusted with power in any way. You may not have a chance to vote for someone else in four years if a man like Trump takes office.

  21. Jane says:

    The Nixon administration successfully charged Mr. Trump and his father with discrimination for turning away black people from his apartment buildings.

  22. kierkegaard71 says:

    I am not sure what uniquely qualifies Mr. Grudem to speak on these matters. In looking over his article, it seems he is writing something that any Christian citizen could write. I long ago stopped voting for Republicans or Democrats for President. I believe that they are two wings on the same bird of prey. They have each contributed toward the destruction of the country in distinct ways.

  23. Bob says:

    Jesus has not commanded us to disengage from the world. We are called to be in the world, not of the world. There are two real options in November. Grudem is right, Kidd is wrong. Romney the Mormon would’ve been a better choice than Obama in 2012, but analysts tell us evangelicals and other conservatives stayed away from the ballot box. The result was another four years of abuse on religious liberty, the family, personal property rights and our veterans.

    Loving our neighbor may mean making choices we don’t think are the best but are the better of another bad alternative. We can show love by keeping the worst choice out of power.


  24. Scott says:

    I wonder… If Adolf Hitler was running on the GOP ticket, what would we do? Would we vote for him because he would nominate conservative judges? Would we discount his Mein Kamph as just talk from a fool? Would we not vote for Hillary Clinton because neither she nor Adolf were a good moral choice?

    At some point much of our reasoning falls apart. I guess the real question for some of us is, “How bad, really, is a President Trump?” I don’t think any American, even an Evangelical, knows.

    Perhaps, we’ve seen his worst, throwing out reporters and babies from his functions. Perhaps someone can assure us, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy… I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.” Tell that to Russian Evangelicals today.

    I just hope that if President Trump oversteps, and he squashes a failed coup by calling his supporters to the streets, that I run into Dr. Grudem on my street instead of some Neo-Nazi. I’d ask him to come over for coffee and sign my copy of his “Systematic Theology.”

    1. Bob says:

      Whoa! Less than 24 hours after the column is posted, someone invokes Godwin’s Law. On a Christian web board. About a nominee whose party didn’t “boo” the state of Israel like the Democrats did in 2012.

  25. Tom says:

    For a faith-based blog, I’m amazed at the comments that could have been copy/pasted from any secular source. Angry arguments about achieving the least-worst outcome.

    Is it so hard to understand that a believer could read Proverbs or the Book of Ecclesiastes and come away convicted by the Holy Spirit that he can’t support Trump or Clinton?

    Honestly, if it’s our responsibility to vote for Trump to save God the trouble of showing up to honor a decision not to choose foolish leaders why bother with faith at all?

  26. I. Smith says:

    Professor Kidd,

    A choice not to choose is in fact itself a choice, with moral weight and consequences. In this election, a choice not to choose Trump is in fact a choice with moral and ethical ramifications. Seeing Hillary Clinton’s willingness to cheat during the Democratic primaries should give us pause; she will likely use similar tactics or worse to try to steal the general election. Choosing not to vote for Trump, as such, is almost certainly a vote for Hillary Clinton.

    As a young Christian leader, I am disheartened to see so many of my mentors, friends and peers unable to see the writing on the wall.

    Trump is not a perfect candidate, far from it, but he is not a threat to our democracy in the way that Hillary Clinton is. Her track record and policies have shown again and again that she is interested in personal gain at the expense of the American people.

    She championed NAFTA, which stripped the States of tens of thousands of blue collar jobs–and she supports TPP. Her husband Bill passed the Crime Bill which has done more damage to the African American Community and black families than any legislation since the Jim Crow Laws.

    Beyond her track record of putting her personal interests ahead of those of the American people, she has consistently shown she is dishonest and untrustworthy–even brazenly lying before Congress. She giggled with glee recounting how she was able to successfully defend a child rapist despite him failing a lie detector test–which Hillary said ruined her faith in lie detectors. Hillary has slandered and silenced women who have been sexually abused and raped by her husband Bill. She has said the most despicable things about Blacks. Not to mention her long-time support of abortion. She is the enemy of women, children and African Americans.

    Beyond that, she will more than likely vote for the most liberal judicial candidates to the Supreme Court we have ever seen–she may have three to five opportunities to do so if she is elected; likely changing the American political landscape for the next fifty years. This is a serious concern for Christians, as we have consistently seen American courts encroaching on Christian’s religious freedoms.

    Trump however has shown that he is willing to engage with Evangelicals and traditional conservatives. His VP choice of Mike Pence makes it clear that he is willing to surround himself with capable and qualified people. He has already given out a list of a dozen potential judicial appointees to the Supreme Court, which have been vetted and approved by hardcore conservatives.

    As I said before, not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary. She is going to do everything in her power (which is considerable, considering she has millions of dollars from hedge funds and banks) to portray Trump as a totalitarian, when he is not.

    She will do everything in her power to rig and steal the general election, the same way she did the Democrat primaries. If there is any election fraud or rigging of voting machines, Trump is going to need landslide victories to overcome Hillary’s machinations.

    The ‘Never Trump,’ crowd claims to be standing on moral principles; but they don’t seem to be able to read the writing on the wall.

    There is no way that a third party candidate can win against Hillary. Therefore, choosing not to vote, or voting a third party virtually ensures Hillary a victory. Those who are still ‘Never Trump,’ are short-sighted cowards. Maybe it is because their pride has been hurt because their candidates were insulted, but we need to see who the real enemy to our democracy and civilization is, and it isn’t Trump!

    Choosing not to vote for Trump IS a moral decision, because choosing not to vote for Trump is as good as a vote for Hillary Clinton. Voting for Hillary has negative ethical and moral consequences.

  27. DCal3000 says:

    I would find articles like this somewhat more convincing if the same levels of concern and criticism were aimed at Gospel Coalition members who, like Thabiti Anyabwile, use their blogs on Gospel Coalition to openly advocate for Hillary Clinton. It is profoundly unfair for the Christian blogosphere to hit Wayne Grudem hard but give Thabiti Anyabwile a free pass, and I am concerned about what such discrepancies say about the state of modern Christian political thought. Either address controversial political endorsements in this election in a balanced way, or don’t address them at all (I speak more to the Gospel Coalition as a whole here than I do to the author of this article).

    That said, though I plan to vote for Donald Trump, I dislike Trump, think many of his statements are un-Christian, and hesitate to back him with the same language that Wayne Grudem does. This is an election in which Christians have to tread very carefully, and we have to stand against injustice and sin whether it comes from the Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians. In that light, Dr. Grudem is correct to warn us that religious liberty will, with almost 100% certainty, be under threat from a Clinton presidency. Hillary Clinton’s administration will not mirror her husband’s; it will be much farther to the left and will change the face of the federal judiciary for the foreseeable future. Christian colleges, think tanks, seminaries, churches, schools, professionals, and others may well see their freedoms restricted; such trends have already begun, both here and in other countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean you should vote for Trump (many faithful Christians will, no doubt, vote against him in November), but it does mean we would do well to keep from ripping each other’s heads off over political endorsements. We need to plan, long-term, how we will stand for Christ in a culture that seems more and more hostile to basic tenets of the Christian faith. I know Christ will preserve His Church, but speaking from a purely human perspective, I don’t think we’re at all ready to address the challenges ahead.

  28. Lucius .Pooser says:

    I am afraid that much of the confusion about Trump as president could by allayed by a careful reading of article II of the constitution. As to eligibility Trump qualifies as a natural born citizen, over age 35 and 14 years resident within the US. Under section 2, his powers are described.
    He serves a commander in chief when the state militia is called up and of the army and navy.
    He manages the cabinet officers ,
    He grants reprieves and pardons.
    He has power WITH The Advice and consent of the senate to make treaties
    WITH THE ADVICE and consent of the Senate he appoints ambassadors other public ministers and counsuls , judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the United States.
    He has power to make recess appointments.
    He gives the state of the union from time to time to Congress.
    He RECOMMENDS to the congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. ( Ed. But the congress must approve the measures)
    He may convene and adjourn both houses as needed.
    He receives ambassadors and other public ministers
    He shall commission all the officers of the United States.
    He may be impeached for and conviction of Treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

    These are the only things Trump or Clinton can constitutionally do. If they were both Christians , this is all they can do. If they are both pagans , this is all they can do. So forget the vain promises and look at the actual powers. Which candidate do you want exercising THESE powers? Who do you want appointing Supreme Court justices who will shape the country for the next 40 years? Who will see that the laws are faithfully executed? We have the devil’s choice. But unless God grants mercy one will be the president in Jan. And we will be accountable before God for the choice we make.

  29. Sem says:

    Trump doesn’t seem to be a racist when it comes to who he hires…. I think he’s just a total wildcard when it comes to policy – who knows what you are getting…. Hillary on the other hand is OUT OUT OUT.

  30. Kristy says:

    Amen! Great article!

  31. Bruce C says:

    I thank Thomas Kidd for his thoughtful blog. I also appreciate several commenters who offer contrary views. I also appreciate that Christians can disagree without name calling and impugning the character of those who see things differently.

    I find supporting Donald Trump on of the most difficult things I’ve ever done in politics. That said, I sincerely believe that Hillary Clinton is far, far worse. Unfortunately, very few bloggers in Christian circles are detailing her flaws. Because of the main stream media spinning every news event in favor of Clinton and Christian bloggers who have both fairly and unfairly critiqued Trump, we now have Conservative evangelicals who say they will vote for Hillary.

    Dr. Thomas Sowell, in a recent blog, summarizes my current thinking: “Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton’s is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

    Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.”

    Perhaps our prayers should be “Come Lord, end this darkness.”

    1. Scott says:

      Thanks for sharing the Sowell quote. I would just add the fear of playing roulette with other lives in other countries in addition to our own. His illustrations could change when we look outside our own country. Trump at the helm of a super power, I don’t know. I really hope a President Trump would strive for being a peacemaker, but I think that’s a false hope. Again, thanks for your words.

  32. Mark says:

    While I agree we should hold those in leadership to high standards,America, while founded on Judeo-Christian values, is not a theocracy, it is a Republic.

    As President James A. Garfield confirmed a century ago:
    [N]ow, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the
    character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless,
    and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness,
    and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it
    is because the people demand these high qualities to represent
    them in the national legislature. . . . [I]f the next centennial
    does not find us a great nation . . . it will be because those who
    represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the
    nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.

    So we should vote our conscience? yes. Can we only vote for a Christian man? No. that limits our influence on the election, when no one lives up to our standards, taking out a good percent of the voting population.

  33. Doug says:

    The Trump-Hillary conundrum is the fruit of the Separation of Church and State mentality that took root around the turn of the 19th century, effectively silencing the Church on matters political, banishing them to focus solely on matters “of the gospel,” while politicians focused on matters of the State. This left our political sphere largely devoid of moral guidance and restraint. If there is one glimmer of hope with Trump—and it is a powerful one!—it is his encouragement for church leaders to openly speak out on matters of the State. Likewise, he has promised to repeal the Johnson amendment which threatens 501(c)(3) organizations with loss of tax exempt status for speaking politically. We should recognize that Christ first and foremost is the political leader of the world. It is therefore only fitting that his messengers speak to the political. Trump promises a crack to let in the light. Consequently, Light is all that is needed to banish our present darkness.

  34. Cristi says:

    But respectfully – what is your solution??? OK – don’t vote for Trump, please don’t for Hillary – so who? Gary Johnson is as pro-choice as they come (even though he says personally he’s pro-life but not as an elected official???). So now what? I’m tired of articles telling us information but not giving a solution. Do you have one – who are we to vote for? Because not voting is NOT an option! I have lived in a communist country and talked with my neighbors who would give their right arm to be able to vote. Rhetoric that stirs things up but offers no real solutions does nothing in aiding Christians in their decision making.

  35. breadforthieves says:

    There was garbage logic and poor wording, to the point of creating falsehoods, all over Grudem’s piece- and it should have been obvious.

    Stuff like equating a “non-vote” with “doing nothing.”

    Declaring that if activists judges were appointed, there would be “nothing in our system of gov’t that anyone could do to stop them.” And that if activist judges are appointed, liberals would “gain permanent control of the nation.”

    And my favorite one: American history shows that presidents govern like they promise. No citation.

    It just goes on and on, but I haven’t the time for a marathon comment.

  36. Curt Day says:

    The only reason why some evangelicals are considering voting for Trump is that, for a long time now, evangelicalism and conservative politics have been syncretically joined at the hip in a nation whose political system relies on a two-party system. So that even if the predominant conservative party in America nominates a person like Donald Trump, loyalty to that party will drive some evangelicals to vote for Trump while for other evangelicals, disdain for the opposing candidate will cause them to also vote for Trump. In either case, there is this repulsive association between a Trump and evangelicalism that provides plenty of stumbling blocks to many of the nonChristians in our nation.

    You can add to that that the syncretic joining of Conservative politics with evangelicalism has hurt the Evangelical Church’s preaching against abortion because Conservative politics has had an extremely spotty record on other pro-life issues. IMO, this preaching has been so hampered by the compromise in pro-life issues outside of abortion that the abortion issue issue has become a moot issue. The evangelical support for American militarism and imperialism, the refusal to acknowledge the future problems caused by climate change, and the aggressive attitudes against social safety nets and support for an exploitive economic system taken by many political conservatives in our nation has closed the ears of many a nonconservative from hearing the case we would make against abortion.

    When you add to that the nation’s refusal to vote for third party candidates, which is a bipartisan problem, we are always left with a choice between voting for the them or the not-them candidate. And because of that, each major political party’s biggest selling point is not found in what they have to offer or provide, but it is found in the fact that they are not the other political party.

    1. Brady Dillon says:

      “The evangelical support for American militarism and imperialism, the refusal to acknowledge the future problems caused by climate change, and the aggressive attitudes against social safety nets and support for an exploitive economic system taken by many political conservatives in our nation has closed the ears of many a nonconservative from hearing the case we would make against abortion.”

      Trump opposes American militarism and imperialism; he opposed the Iraq war, which Clinton supported. He’s not hostile to social safety nets; he has adamantly held that Social Security and Medicare are not to be touched. You should look into him; he might be just what you were looking for.

  37. Michael Shelnutt says:

    I’m writing in Darrell Castle of the Ga Constitution Party.

  38. Doug Heathcoat says:

    Why is appointment of SCOTUS justices an issue, when all SCOTUS decisions abhorrent to Christians were handed down by majorities of justices nominated by Republican POTUSs. But it will be different this time, right?

  39. Casey says:

    Mr. Kidd, what do you propose evangelicals do? I have listened to Russell Moore and Al Mohler both say that they will not vote for either candidate. But I have not heard any evangelical leaders actually leading and offering solutions. There are plenty who say that neither Trump nor Hillary are viable options – but I have not heard any offering a solution or alternative.

  40. Val Shaw says:

    ‘Was there ever a candidate more obviously unqualified for high public office, as measured by his dearth of relevant knowledge and experience, his willfulness and self-absorption, his compulsive lying and inconsistency, his manipulative using of other people, his smash-mouth rhetoric and low character? ‘ YES! His name is Obama.
    The problem with this argument, like many others is that we should vote for no one. What? How is that biblically responsible? We all had the chance to vote in the primaries and Trump is who got the nomination. We can’t just not vote or vote for a write in which is essentially the same thing. That’s what happened last time and we got Obama back. How, after the last four years, can you in good conscience do it again? Until we, as evangelicals, can rise up and appoint one of our own, we have to continue to vote for the candidate that we feels can do the best job taking care of and fighting for our beautiful country. You decide that for yourself after much prayer but my vote, being a conservative, is always going to be conservative.

  41. Allen says:

    Matthew 5:13-16, 43-48
    “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven. …“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    Colossians 4:4-6
    Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

    John 7:24
    (Jesus) Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

    Please pay attention to Tom and Missy, when they ask why we are so quick to accuse Donald Trump of things that may not be true. Look at Andy when he sees Evangelicals as perfect people who go around condemning everyone who doesn’t meet their standards. Think of What Donald Trump must be thinking of Evangelicals when they sound exactly like the people who are finding any and every excuse to criticize or bring him down. Look at David when he says that maybe God is big enough to handle Donald Trump, and maybe we should make the best moral decision we can and trust God with the rest. Who knows, God might surprise us or actually have things in control. John says if we want to find out if Donald Trump is a racist, maybe we should listen to people who know Donald Trump, his family, his business, and maybe people he trusts enough to help with his business or help fix what he thinks is wrong with America. People like Bill O’Reilly, Lynn Patton,, and Dr Ben Carson It also might help to look up the definition of racism in a dictionary look at what we were like as a nation before Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement.

    God is truth, and we must be careful to present an atmosphere of truth, and avoid any accusation we have not carefully researched or might not be true. When we speak our word need to reflect not our own opinions, not what the world is saying, but God and his truth. Some comments here don’t seem to honor God or reflect His light.

    Ephesians 5:1-2, 8- 16
    Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God….For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord.Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. It is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible—and everything that is illuminated becomes a light. This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise,making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

  42. Anne says:

    I am wondering about your statement:
    In order to pick a “lesser of two evils” candidate for president, one of them would have to be a morally responsible choice.

    How could an “evil” ever be a “morally responsible choice?”

    If I had to choose between being convicted and sentenced for murder or stealing, I would choose stealing. It’s the lesser evil and carries a lesser sentence. But neither is morally responsible. I am not making a comparison to Hillary and Trump here. I am only trying to demonstrate that evil is, just that, evil. A lesser evil is never a morally responsible choice.

Comments are closed.

Search this blog



Thomas S. Kidd, PhD

Thomas S. Kidd is distinguished professor of history at Baylor University, and the author of many books, including Benjamin Franklin: The Religious Life of a Founding Father  (Yale, 2017); George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father (Yale, 2014) and Baptists in America: A History with Barry Hankins (Oxford, 2015). You can follow him on Twitter and subscribe to his weekly author newsletter.

Thomas S. Kidd's Books