Monica Brands

Thank you for this beautiful testimony. If I had to write the piece over I too would adjust it to avoid implying the point was endorsing a candidate, so I too apologize for any misunderstanding. Your heart for justice in both the church and the political realm is so laudable, and those conversations critiquing both left and right are so needed, it just became clear this wasn't the best forum for that. What I was trying to hold up was the experiences of women and the gravity of such behavior, ideas which you communicate here so gracefully.

Well put, Bonnie! Thank you. 

Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy! I certainly think it is an ethical choice to abstain from voting due to pro-life positions, and this isn't a post promoting Hillary's candidacy. Whether a Trump ticket would actually solve the problem of abortion is debatable, but "ends justify the means" logic inherent in supporting someone who demeans so many people groups and is likely to oppress them as president I don't find compelling. I am simply asking for Christians to abstain from publicly endorsing this particular candidate or at the very minimum being stronger in their condemnation of his consistent behavior and attitudes about women. You may find Prof. Tuininga's article (linked in the article) helpful as a perspective on why being pro-life isn't a good enough reason to support Trump. Even if at the end of the day we disagree about the ethics of a Trump vote, I hope our Christians leaders can be more honest in their assessment of the moral character Trump's words and actions demonstrate. 

Thanks for your thoughts, Ken! I agree that we need to be sober, fair, and consistent in our evaluation of candidates. 

Thanks for providing that link, Jane! Yes, there's a deep need for such a movement of coming together towards a more holistic ethic of life. 

I especially appreciate the opening comment from the article you link: "As a black Christian in an urban environment, I consciously struggle to give my allegiance to either political party. In this way, this election gives many white evangelicals a sense of what it’s like to be a black believer in America today."

Hi Joe,

Trump has not taken real responsibility for those words or behavior. "I apologize,  but this was locker room talk" is not a sincere apology. I also see little to no evidence of faith in Christ. He continues to mock, belittle,  and lie, and rarely if ever apologizes for cruel comments. He has since mocked the appearance of one of the women accusing him. Jesus said we guage true belief by behavior. I do not see any evidence of following Christ in his behavior. His comments on that tape, made as a married I believe close to 60 yr old man, are completely consistent with how he's talked about women throughout this campaign. 

This post wasn't about Hillary,  it was about taking these words and his many other comments about women seriously. Even if that means there's no candidate you can support.  

Hi Edward!

Thanks for interacting here. 

I know many people who, like you, feel Donald Trump is the lesser of two evils in this election. Obviously my blog makes it clear my assessment of his character, but I understand Christians have freedom to disagree about this. And I too have concerns about Ms. Clinton. (I may vote 3rd party this election.) Ultimately, my goal here is to highlight how shocking the words and attitudes toward women have been in this election and help readers understand how painful his words and treatment of women are. Even if we cannot agree on his politics, I would urge for more concern and compassion for how his behavior and words about women affect women, and at least more understanding for why many women will not vote for Trump. I would like leaders to understand why a lot of women, like myself, are in pain because of how regularly he demeans women. The tape just confirmed for many of us what we suspected. Obviously, I am not God and cannot ultimately determine whether his life has or has not changed since that tape by God's power, but the track record of his comments in this election alone has given me sufficient reason for doubts. Indeed, when asked about his faith, Donald Trump said he does not need to ask God for forgiveness, which seems pretty fundamental. 

In regards to "crude statements," -- the issue here isn't the crudeness of the language, but bragging that power and fame allows you to not wait for consent, allows you to assault. That is unusual, even for "locker room talk." I'm aware that men brag about sexual conquests; I believe significantly fewer of them brag about assault. 

In regards to our forgiveness of Trump: I'm not sure that's relevant here. Donald Trump has not asked me for forgiveness, and has not personally wronged me. I don't feel I need to forgive him any more than I need to forgive Hillary Clinton (who also professes to be a Christian) for her poor decisions regarding email servers. It is up to his alleged victims to forgive him for misconduct, and up to voters to decide whether his character is trustworthy enough for the highest position in our country. What we are highlighting here is a troubling pattern of misogyny, and our culture's seeming willingness to not take that seriously. Vote where your conscience leads you, but I'd also urge an openness to the wounds his words and behavior have opened for many women, as Bonnie's comment and link highlight. 

Thanks, Doug - I can understand why, given the timing, some readers would feel I was suggesting an implied vote for Hillary, but that was not at all the intent of the article. Perhaps I could have made that clearer in the initial blog, but I thought I was writing to an audience of Christians, who, whichever way they vote, are regretful that a person of his character is the Republican candidate.The issue was raising awareness of how painful his character issues and treatment of women is for women such as myself, and for conscientious Christians, whichever way they vote, to not shrug off his treatment of women. I was responding to the phenomenon of Christians we've all heard saying things like the words and behavior is "not that big a deal." My disagreement isn't primarily with those who vote Trump, but those who shrug off his behavior toward women. Saying we cannot talk candidly about how a politician's words and actions affect women because that might be interpreted as supporting the other candidate is troubling to me. Hence, using the comments section to discuss the alleged flaws of Hillary is missing the point. It was important to avoid the comment section becoming a prolonged debate about the morality of a Hillary or Trump vote. 

Hi Doug, 

Trump's recent statements bring up the issue of the abuse of women because they are, as I opened the piece, painful and difficult words to hear, trigger words for women who've been abused in just the manner Trump describes. Check out the hashtag #notokay to read some of the millions of stories those words provoked. http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/125801/twitter-trump-women-not-okay-hashtag. If an honest conversation about how painful those words are is taken as a "political pitch" I think that's a risk we need to take, because women need to talk about how these words affect us. 

Even if you ultimately conclude, given your political convictions, that a Hillary presidency is one you cannot support and you think a 3rd party vote is wasted, a person running for president who openly disparages women on a regular basis and shrugs off his sexual assault comments as locker rock talk is a serious situation that should be discussed as such. It is a serious situation if we've had people with similar character in the White House in the past as well, and I think it speaks to  the success of abuse awareness that we're having this conversation surrounding Trump's comments today.

We are trying to avoid this descending into a discussion of Hillary's flaws, because although you're right that a piece critical of defending / supporting Trump will provoke such questions about how we should vote, this forum isn't the best place to sort through those questions. There are lots of good resources to assess the strengths and flaws of each candidate outside of Safe Church, and we dont' have the capacity to respond to all such questions/concerns. 

You say that no Trump supporter defends the comments - that just isn't true. That was in part what prompted the post, the pain I and other female friends of mine have felt at hearing people in our lives act like it isn't a big enough deal to merit a serious conversation about the implications of his character. In my own (Christian) circles, I've heard several people defend Trump's comments, literally saying they didn't think it was "that big of a deal," that "he's apologized; we need to forgive and forget." Those words were used. Others have tried to say Trump is a baby Christian whom we "must" forgive despite any apparent change of character. Christians are saying these things. That is what troubled me, our sudden abandonment of any honest moral assessment of our candidate just because he's a Republican, and what I was responding to. 

I don't know that I'll have time to continue to respond to comments today, but I hope that's helpful in clarifying. 

John, see above responses for my response to this comment. 

Hi Ken,

Thanks for this comment. I think it gets at why this is a difficult conversation to have. I understand how hurtful it can be to be too feel one is too quickly labeled or characterized. And yet, I think we do have to acknowledge the difference in gendered experiences. I don't think it's labeling to acknowledge women as a group have experienced more objectification and sexual violence than men. It's not labeling to talk about the problem when many men don't seem to quite understand, and women shouldn't need to silence or apologize for their frustration and pain out of fear that some men might feel unfairly targeted by virtue of being male. If men are standing with women, hearing their stories, and not dismissing their feelings on this, there is no reason to feel shame or guilt. 

Discussing the dynamics of abortion, etc., are valid conversations, but the post was in response to a staggering lack of sensitivity from many men in response to the misogyny so prevalent this campaign. The men I've heard make hurtfully dismissive comments in regards to Trump's words and behavior towards women, which I still can't talk about without starting to physically shake, did not seem to understand what it like to be a woman and how serious such behavior is. That doesn't make them villains, but it does mean it's valid to talk about this. In such an atmosphere, a call for men to stand with women, to hear their stories, and refuse to engage in conversation that minimizes the character implications for who Trump is seems valid to me. Comments like "it's not that big of a deal," "he apologized," "it was 10 years ago," all demonstrate ignorance of the dynamics of abusive behavior and the connection between the blatant misogyny Trump shows on a daily basis and the abuses he speaks of and seems very likely to have committed.  "Forgive and forget, he apologized," in particular, a line I heard quite a few times, is the same kind of logic regularly used to silence abuse victims after their abuser makes any sort of apology, however surface level. Again, this doesn't suggest that all or even most men are making those kind of comments, but they have been happening pretty regularly, so it's not inappropriate to appeal to men in particular to use their power to oppose such statements, and to listen to the stories Trump's words are reopening from women, instead of immediately pivoting to the flaws of the other candidate.  

I think you're right that race, immigration, and shifting views in the CRC are too off-topic to really dive into, but I think on each of those issues making space to hear and respect stories of experiences of life different from our own can do a lot to heal perceived divides.