Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Does God Want Us to Support Or Oppose Donald Trump?
Although I am confident that God agrees with me on just about every issue, I am very reluctant to offer that as persuasive evidence of the rightness of whatever profundity I happen to be offering at any given moment. It would be great if eternal salvation were determined only by the depth and sophistication of one’s political opinions but nothing worthwhile is ever that simple. Worse, declarations of one’s own piety and righteousness invariably lead to the discovery of hypocrisy on a significant scale.
Christians do not get much in the way of partisan guidance from the New Testament. The closest we get is the cryptic lesson from that time when some snarky MSM-type jerkweed thought he could trap Jesus into expressing a controversial opinion. Jesus would either have to back the nationalist struggle against Roman rule and get in big trouble with the authorities or go squish and endorse Rome and thus alienate many of his followers. Here is the version in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 20:
20 Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. 21 So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. 22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, 24 “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?”
“Caesar’s,” they replied.
25 He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
26 They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.
I estimate that in the two millennia since this incident that there have been about 20 to 22 billion sermons, homilies, meditations and exegeses on this event. I could also expound, of course, but let me just say that this passage means that in political matters (and all else) you must always consult (a well-formed) conscience, then do what you gotta do and make the best choices you can under the circumstances. Clear, universally agreed-upon, unambiguous answers are probably not going to be forthcoming most of the time. And you will sometimes find yourself in disagreement with people of goodwill.
For example, there has been a mini-revival on the Catholic left to express both criticisms of the social costs of capitalism and a fondness for political movements to compel a more ordered economy. While I have very smart friends who hold these opinions, I happen to regard these leanings as anachronistic (the tech innovation genie is never going back in the bottle), blind to the political distortion and potential abuse of power needed to stifle economic change and a distraction from a need to build support structures to deal with change instead of futilely fighting change.
While it is obvious that I am right about all this, it is by no means obvious that their misguided positions are immoral or inconsistent with the spirit and substance of Christianity. Similarly, we may ask whether is a war immoral because of death and damage or right and just because of the evils opposed. The war in Vietnam, the nuking of Hiroshima or war by drone strikes can be debated on moral terms by well-intentioned people of good conscience who reach opposing views.
But none of those great moral questions have the scope and centrality of the overriding theological issue before us today: Does God want us to support or oppose Donald Trump?
Trump is venal, often treats underlings badly, is given to subjective stylings when more disciplined deliberations would be preferable. Like Bill Clinton, Trump has a history of sexual infidelity but unlike Clinton, it has not carried over into his to time in office. (For the record, this comment should be regarded as a loving fraternal correction and not a judgment of either President.)
Even though I already know what God would prefer in this regard, as an exercise, let’s explore the possibilities:
God Wants Us to Support Mr. Trump. (“Favors”) Let us dispense with the pro forma notions of a prayerful wish for the well-being of all our elected leaders, rendering respect for the office, etc. and look to Mr. Trump specifically. In the Favors position, one knowingly supports a conspicuously flawed man because he has delivered policies and outcomes largely consistent with the preferences and interests of people who practice or allow their political outlook to be shaped by religious faith. This preference for the Favors position is further driven by the fact that the opposition party, while committed to a dialogue of compassion, acceptance, and community is also overtly hostile to all orthodox religious beliefs, practices, and institutions.
I should point out that defending religious values, traditions and institutions against assault and persecution is not prima facie evidence of a sanctifiable intent or action. A favorable secular outcome and a loathing of one’s avowed culture-war enemies is not necessarily proof of morally correct intentions. So the claim that to support Trump politically is to advance the cause of righteousness and is thus the morally superior position is not necessarily theologically correct, especially in light of traditional Christian indifference to adverse temporal outcomes where higher goals are sought.
God Wants Us to Oppose Mr. Trump. (“Opposes”) The opposition to Trump by the forces of perversion, servitude and socioeconomic rot that collectively go by the name “Democratic Party” is mere politics in a debased age. The more interesting theological question involves those who oppose both the tenets of the Democratic Party and the continuance in office by Donald Trump.
The Opposes position focuses on Mr. Trump’s past behavior, rude utterances, venal spontaneities, and ad hominem style. These are said to demean the highest political office in the land, threaten to produce dangerously inconsistent policies, lower the tone of American political discourse and forever tarnish the image of the party of Lincoln and Reagan. The rescue of what is good in the American system of governance and the preservation of the major conservative political party require the removal of Donald Trump. Moreover, it is simply wrong to tacitly or expressly condone such unacceptable behavior.
This is a nominally coherent moral position. (At this time, we will not explore the dangers inherent in a moral position founded on beliefs concerning someone else’s sins.) However, if the Favors position seems too dependent on positive secular outcomes for its justification, the Opposes position suffers from a strange indifference to the material consequences of its posture. The amelioration of evils attributed to the presidency of Donald Trump requires that he be replaced but someone who will not be similarly evil or worse. The notion that history will applaud a principled stand that actually ushered in le déluge seems oddly solipsistic.
Conclusion. God and I agree that the Favors position is way too presumptuous about its spiritual righteousness –one can be an atheist pervert and still loathe and oppose Marxism and its variants. Combatting temporal evils is not necessarily a sanctified undertaking. We also agree that the Opposes position too readily devolves into a kind of narcissism, a mere declaration of personal moral superiority to a particular sinner without regard for larger personal obligations and consequences of taking that position.
In short, God wants out of this debate. God does not want to be invoked when it is not about what God expressly wants. When we consider that the Highest Being in the universe can forgive even the likes of Pol Pot, Ted Bundy or Brian Stelter we should be humbled and strongly hesitant to think our partisan preferences carry divine endorsement. We are all equal on Ricochet, sinners all, required to address temporal matters on a temporal plane as best we can with mutual respect and humility. Thus endeth the sermon. Cheers.
Published in General
I think the king consciousness was recognizing God as King. While we are to obey earthly authorities, one of the original pillars of America was to free the individual from the mandates of earthly authority by limiting it so we might better serve God freely.
I wondered if someone would mention that essay of French’s. As a Christian I’m not aware of defending any of Trump’s lies. It’s not usually necessary to do so since most of the time it’s Trump’s opinion, or it’s hyperbole in the service of booster-ism for the economy or some such. Or it’s not a lie at all.
I appreciate it when Trump fights back, unlike Romney and McCain who refused to do so and lost. And unlike GW Bush, who was the most mild, kind and presidential man you could ever find and still got called a lying, bumbling Nazi.
It is not love to fail to call out people when they do the wrong thing. Christ Himself did call out people in a fairly nasty fashion at times when they were being bad, comparing His detractors to white tombs full of filth at one point, for example.
French’s entire opus on Trump looks to me like bashing Trump (and his supporters!) with whatever comes to hand and giving Trump absolutely no credit for doing anything good. Certainly, it’s not Christian love.
I’ve never heard that quote before, but it really hits the bullseye.
Exactly. This, I think, is the real meaning of, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” It’s not about saying, “Oh my God!” or even, “Godd–nit!” It’s about presuming to speak for God. We should hope and pray, not declare, that God is on our side.
We need less Deus Vult and more Deus Velit if you will. 😉
I was just going to post this same idea but with less facility and standing.
Evening Old BAthos, Roderick, JeanneBodine,
It is natural for us to be concerned with our leadership, our future, and to wonder what God’s up to giving us this confusing world. But, God has shown that He thinks in terms of a much longer timeline, than we can imagine, He thinks in terms of eternity. Remember how Joseph ended up in Egypt and after being imprisioned, he becomes the Pharaoh’s most trusted advisor. This sets the stage for Jacob and his sons and what will be the people of Israel to go Egypt to save them from famine. They are saved but there is a cost, not only will they be under a ruler who does not believe in God, but they will become slaves for hundreds of years. Then, God uses Moses to free the Hebrews and yet once they are free, they begin to think God brought them to the dessert to kill them and they wish they were back in Egypt. At each stage, which human could have comprehended how God was going to work this history out.
We are in what, appears to us, to be unusual times, however we know that as we are living in the presence of God, the leaders we have are part of His plan, of course this includes Obama. It is tempting to think that one leader has been approved by God and the other leader has been rejected by God, or works against God’s plan. This temptation leads us to ambitious thoughts, that our choice will further God’s plan or slow it down, or that those who disagree with us are either religiously ignorant or they are betraying their faith. These thoughts lead us to think more about ourselves and not focus on God, and think on our dependence on Him and how we can rest in understanding that He is in control.
French only argues against Trump, I was waiting for his long screed on how Hillary was the moral choice. Seeing as only two people could realistically win, that’s his implication right? French threw his vote away, which is just as good as a Hillary vote.
Ned Flanders can have his milquetoast Ben Sasse type in 2024. They’ll call him a racist nazi as well. Then he’ll clutch pearls and write thinkpieces on how this is Trumpism’s fault or how “we” need to make our case better, and it’s never on him.
Democrats use our moral rigidity as a club. Taunt a fat kid in 8th grade, guess you’re not leadership material.
But I still like French. Trump to me is the answer to the other rat finks of the Bulwark and Dispatch who said if only we’d stop catering to evangelicals we’d have a bigger tent. Then they found out the bigger tent involves normal people and not the cool kids club.
Those same types also didn’t like Ted Cruz because he was too argumentative. Enjoy trying to change the Democrats
Christ never forced anybody to do anything. I don’t think libertarians give him nearly enough credit for this.
This is a secular discussion of the Trump vs. NeverTrumper thing but I think it is polite and thoughtful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii9tvB_1nfU
This comment is inappropriately thoughtful and profound as a response to a post that was largely flippant.
Your comment is misleading. I was expecting a debate, not yet another rant.