"David French wrote an article called, "Franklin Graham and the high Cost of the Lost Evangelical Witness which is basically a rebuke of Graham because in 1998 he took Bill Clinton to task in an op-ed for saying his affair was a private matter. French said Graham was not consistent because now he says the affairs of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels is their business. French wondered if politics is entirely transactional now for evangelicals. Now, Clinton had the affair in the Oval Office and it is a quantum leap to compare that to Trump's past. As far as I know, Trump has seen the errors of his way. I am not condoning his past. I am a proponent of marriage." -- Shane Idleman
Well as a proponent of marriage how do you reconcile that this is Trump's third marriage or the fact that he lost the first two due to infidelity? How about the accusations of rape by his first wife who he then bought off with a non-disclosure agreement as part of the divorce? Graham's lost witness started way before this Shane. Perhaps when he accepted donations to both his charities from Trump and then started backing him bothered some people. Maybe when he changed the classification of his charities to "churches" so he would no longer have to divulge his salaries he lost many followers. Perhaps it was the unseemliness of earning $800,000 per year in those two salaries that turned some folks off. Or maybe it was the rank hypocrisy that you summarized. It was not just the op-ed in 1998 Shane. The entire evangelical leadership was apoplectic about Clinton screaming "morality matters!" Fast forward 20 years and apparently morality only matters if there is a "D" next to your name. Here is some deep theology for you today Shane. Your opinion means nothing in these matters. The world sees this for the hypocrisy that it is and thus Graham loses his witness. That was French's point.
"Twelve years later President Trump is surrounded by a strong evangelical board of counselors. He's doing a lot for the advancement of free speech. We heard that he has repented. That he wants to know what God's will is. Do we throw someone under the bus 12 years later and compare that to what Bill Clinton did in the Oval Office? Now, if someone does that in the Oval Office it is right to impeach." -- Shane Idleman
Really? You do know that was NOT why he was impeached, right? Clinton was impeached because he lied about the affair under oath in a civil deposition. The more troubling point here is this constant desire to pretend the criticism of Trump is buried somewhere in his sinful past and now he is just living for Jesus. Remember Shane that it was only two years ago, during the campaign, that Trump tried to pay off Stormy Daniels to cover up the affair before the people voted. So the world sees 130,000 reasons why Trump's behavior has still not changed to this day. The reference to free speech here must be in relation to the easing of enforcement on the Johnson Amendment. Any true preacher knows this was not a positive development for the Gospel. The Johnson Amendment basically forbids pastors from endorsing a particular political party or candidate. Now, I understand why the NAR seven mountains dominionist would want this eased but a true preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not in a million years would I want to give the pastors in this country yet another thing they can use the pulpit for other than preaching the Gospel. He has repented? When? Says who? Last time he weighed in on that he said he had no reason to ask God for forgiveness. This is what losing your witness looks like and the world sees it very clearly. When we bend over backwards to excuse one man while vilifying another based solely on party. It is political, not Christian.
"I'm not for Republican or Democrat. I am for what God's Word says. God's Word says we need godly legislation. I'm concerned where the next president is going to take my kids and your kids. What are we leaving for the next generation?" -- Shane Idleman
It sure sounds like you are for Republican. That aside, where exactly in God's Word does it say we need godly legislation? Let me help you Shane -- nowhere. That is again, straight up NAR teaching. If you are concerned about where your kids are going to end up just follow the bible. Raise them up in the admonition of the Lord and when they are older they shall not depart from it. Do not show them rank hypocrisy that even they will be able to see through.
"We are not voting for people and their moral character. We are voting for principles. We need principle centered leadership. We need men who are for God. If you look at who this President is surrounding himself with. Who is he looking for godly counsel from?" -- Shane Idleman
This is the hypocrisy French was speaking about. When it was Bill Clinton it was all about character and now character seemingly is irrelevant? That don't fly. More importantly, this NAR thinking is flawed from the start. Voting for principles means you are voting based upon what a politician promises you instead of their character, which shows you who they are. The evangelical world is adamant that the GOP is God ordained and the Democrats are from the pits of hell but who gave us Roe to begin with? A GOP Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. Who affirmed it decades later? Another GOP Supreme Court. The evangelical church is like Charlie Brown having unrealistic hope that Lucy will not pull the football away this time. In the early 2000's they swore John Roberts was the judicial savior we needed yet he affirmed Obamacare much to the disdain of the far right. If you think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the answers just wait and see Charlie. Someone once said when someone shows you who they are; believe them. Character is the only way to measure what we will get in an elected official.