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.
Reluctant Trump Christians, Where Is Your Confounding Love?
Consider this an exhortation. I hear things from Trump-ump David French (“calling balls and strikes,” but never tallying RBIs) and read articles from Christians anguished over the President’s ugly, New York Americanism, and I have trouble finding the Spirit in it. Rather than digging a channel to God’s ocean of mercy, it seems some Christians are trying to dispense it with a teaspoon. It’s all so pinched and joyless and, well, unfamiliar to me as “Christian.”
Donald Trump is a sinner. Christians should not be surprised by this. What is astonishing is the good he’s done and is continuing to do, which must, by necessity, originate with God, who is the source of all goodness. “Oh, but he’s not really Christian, he just mouths the right words about the preciousness of all human life as made in the image and likeness of God,” some say. The subtext of this criticism is he’s hopelessly irredeemable no matter what he says or does! Is that Christian love? Is it even recognizable as faith in God’s ability to work in and through Donald Trump’s life?
A reading from morning prayers from the book of James:
Do not speak evil of one another, brothers. Whoever speaks evil of a brother or judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law. If you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?
And from Romans:
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
“Yes, but affiliating with Donald Trump gives Christians and Christianity a bad reputation.” With whom? Are you really concerned about ingratiating yourself with the worshipers of Moloch?
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
In case you haven’t noticed, apologizing and making excuses to the Left is just chumming the water. Donald Trump gets this. Never apologize. You should not attempt to reconcile with evil or evil ideologies.
“But his tweets are embarrassingly juvenile and crass.” Maybe my response isn’t so much about my Christian faith and is more about my family genetics. My family of origin has ornery in its DNA. We like sassy and get a lot of laughs out of each other’s antics. I like to think of us as little lambs frolicking in the Lord’s pasture, and get the feeling He gets a good laugh, too.
It’s not that I don’t believe we’re all called to holiness, it’s just that these are minor infractions against the calling and I do believe we’ll all get there by the grace of God — eventually. And “holiness” doesn’t mean boring. Even Saint Augustine prayed, “Lord, make me holy, but not yet.” Father Michael Gaitley likes to say, “Make me a saint, but be gentle.” Our Good Shepherd is gentleness personified. Mercy Himself. We should strive to be imitators of Him.
And finally, “But Donald Trump once said he doesn’t need God’s forgiveness, even though he’s been an adulterer, a fornicator, a liar . . .” Were you born knowing you need a Savior? When did you figure it out? Have you never failed to ask for forgiveness when you should have? Have you come to know God better than you did 20 years ago? Why would all these things not also be true of Donald Trump? Whose timetable is he on anyway? Yours or God’s?
Frankly, I see a lot of ego and pride sneaking into the Christian angst over Donald Trump. And we all know where that leads. Will you be a joyful, loving, merciful disciple of Christ? Or a joyless scold, attracting no one to the faith? God gives us free will to choose.
Published in General
Well-put. Thanks!
“Never bet against the people having the most fun.”
With some of it, not all of it. I pointed out what it is I have a problem with, which is your wanting no criticism of Trump from the Right.
I don’t care what the MSM says about Trump or about French and Goldberg. The MSM has no credibility anymore.
No, he’s revealed his unhappiness at the Evangelicals’ double standard.
I’m not a fan of consistency for consistency’s sake either. But there are places where it’s called for. If you didn’t like Obama’s executive overreach, then you shouldn’t like Trump’s. If you thought Clinton’s transgressions were disqualifying, then why not Trump’s? If you think Trump shouldn’t be criticized by anyone on the Right, why should anyone on the Right not share in that immunity?
I did answer, which was to ask why is a “good purpose” necessary? French and Goldberg’s job is to provide conservative commentary from their perspective about public figures and public events. That’s what they do. They’re not working for the Trump re-election campaign.
If The press thought French and Goldberg were a threat, they would treat them like Trump.
That they don’t, speaks volumes.
F & G have never been Palin’d or Trump’d.
Trump takes the arrows for them too !
Give me an example of Trump’s executive overreach to be unhappy about.
Because Trump isn’t being serviced by an intern in the White House, or soliciting sex from underage girls or we’d know about it!!!
This is getting tiresome. The Press was on Bill Clinton’s side — although not as much as it was on Obama’s.
No, David French isn’t criticizing the double standard. You are. He’s criticizing Christians for being unprincipled and damaging their Christian witness. I’m criticizing him back for not being a doer of the law of love, but a judge of his brothers and sisters in Christ. I think a good purpose is necessary if you’re going to faithfully serve the cause of the Kingdom. Our Christian interest isn’t just in “doing a job,” it’s in assisting Christ’s effort to save souls, even if it’s Donald Trump’s.
I think he is unique in his cultural literacy. That, coupled with the fact that he’s smarter than people give him credit for, is why I think he’s been as successful as he’s been. So I’d say he is the guy who’s paved a way for more charming conservatives to achieve their goals.
His ability to draw out the kookiness of the opposition is going to be incalculably valuable. He’s made it as embarrassing for young people to be progressives as it has always been for them to be conservatives. I think that’s huge! But I agree with you that he has a lot of people around him doing a lot of the less exciting work.
In general? Or within the party?
I’m kinda optimistic that it won’t be. That said: sharpen your pencil and hold on to your butts!
Then we’re reading different articles. In the one I was reading recently, French detailed the Evangelical response to Bill Clinton’s behavior, and contrasted it with the Evangelical response to Trump.
Then why criticize anyone on the Right?? Heck, why criticize anyone at all, then, Right or Left? Aren’t you just being a judge of your brothers and sisters?
What does David French think he’s accomplishing? What is his goal in spending the last four years nagging evangelicals about how bad it is that they vote for or support President Trump?
What’s the endgame for Nevers? What does their desired end state look like?
Amen!! They just can’t help but tear their hair out and make themselves look ridiculous. That’s quite an asset to have going into a re-election campaign.
Can’t a guy on Twitter be joyful without being a jerk? Can’t we wish for it?
I’m talking about the citizens, though. The joyful people at the Trump rallies. Those deplorable irredeemables that David French has decided vote wrong. He insists that all good Christians should abstain from voting. If he had his wish, then whatever Socialist the Democrats put forth would win.
Is he okay with that? If not, then logically he hopes and expects that a lot of Christians will not abstain so that we don’t start losing our freedoms. (Which means he really doesn’t want people taking his advice and his statements are just a performative act.) And if he is okay with that, he’s no defender of freedom at all.
What is the “perfect state” which David French and his ilk have set against the good? What is their desired outcome in 2020?
Ok, jolly good!
Far be it from me to sort through all the logic!
But here’s a short provisional analysis:
I think French is wrong if he wants us to not vote, but if he’s just updating Respectable Position on Trump no. 5 for a new election cycle I doubt I can blame him for anything more than being mistaken. (Nor would I want to blame him.)
The evidence now more strongly favors Respectable Position no. 3, no. 6 at the worst!
More judges! More judges!
God, having used Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Titus, to name just three, for His purposes, seems more than prepared to work with his orangeness.
No but. He’s saying that Christians should abstain from voting.
His purity test is that the President should be a moral paragon, and should hold conservative views. Failing either, Christians should not vote for him.
Like I said above, if he truly wishes for all professing Christians to heed this advice, then he is handing the country over to the socialist/communist gun-grabbing baby-killers. And yet has the audacity to claim that’s moral.
That they should abstain from voting for President in 2020. Yeah, that looks like it’s just a somewhat misguided or confused version of R. P. on T. no. 5.
You read that article approvingly? Wow. I found it insufferable.
Insufferable it may or may not be. But French is indeed criticizing a double standard.
Not that one has to have a double standard to vote for Trump.
For all I know he and Bill Clinton may both burn in hell for their adulteries–warning against which is a fine reason to criticize. (Agreement with Painter Jean’s “Heck, why criticize anyone at all, then, Right or Left? Aren’t you just being a judge of your brothers and sisters?”)
But–single standard, now–we’ll have a choice between one dishonest big jerk who appoints originalist judges, tends to stand for religious liberty and unborn life, and has policies good for poverty reduction, and . . . another dishonest big jerk who will run this year as a Democrat.
He’s comparing Bill Clinton, rapist, pedophile and predator while in office!! To Donald Trump, boorish playboy and mad tweeter who has not been credibly accused of anything while President, including colluding with the Russians or lying under oath to protect his sorry a$$.
French seems to have no faith that God may be working in Donald Trump’s life — that he’s progressed beyond his worst self to something better — merely because he tweets!
I have no patience for this. He’s not criticizing a double standard. He’s making no distinctions when distinctions are well deserved. The repetition of “there’s no such thing as a binary choice,” is bonkers. He may be a smart man, but this is an unreality that makes him look stupid. Unbelievable really. It is all about his precious standards and keeping his hands clean.
You’ve got baby killers and pedophiles on one side and an ugly American who loves his country on the other. Make a damn choice and get over yourself, Mr. French.
That’s the right comparison, if the terms by which Clinton was criticized also apply to Trump. Some terms I expect do not. The one about adultery applies.
As far as outcomes are concerned, the options are binary. Whether you vote for a lesser evil, vote for greater, or do not vote was never binary.
At this point it looks like French is making the wrong choice, and perhaps unjustifiably judging us for our choice. I’m not I can say anything worse about him.
The one about adultery applies fifteen years prior to his presidency! Is he currently committing adultery with an intern in the Oval Office? How does French know he hasn’t repented and made amends with Melania? This is presumptuous. And arrogant. And, well, reminiscent of the Pharisees.
French says Donald Trump is degrading the culture, as if electing a Bernie Sanders wouldn’t be worse! As if Donald Trump is singly responsible for the decline of western civilization. It’s insanity.
If this is true, Mr. French is worse than I thought.
Given that the porn star was after the birth of Barron T., now 13 according to the internet and three years into the presidency, let’s make that 10.
But sure–10 years ago versus last year in the Oval Office–it makes a difference.
No doubt one term for critiquing Clinton was “adultery in the Oval Office” or “adultery last week.” Another term was “repeated adultery” or just “adultery.” Not all the terms apply, but some do.
I agree with you.
But if French understands that the Dems are bad too (as he probably does; Goldberg sure does!) and feels that he can’t in good conscience vote for a lesser evil, who am I morally to judge him? No one, I expect.
Who am I logically to argue he’s mistaken? A rational human being, which is all I have to be!
I had mentally prepared several comments to say in your defense, but you did such a good job defending yourself I might as well kick back, relax and keep my mouth shut.
Not that I would actually do that …
Is it so hard for French to hold two thoughts in his head at the same time about Trump, one good and one bad?
Is it so hard for him to do the same with thoughts about Trump supporters?
Is it so hard for us to do the same with thoughts about French?
Let’s have a hypothetical election between a pro-slavery candidate and an abolitionist. It is well known that if the pro-slavery candidate wins, millions of innocent people will suffer.
What if both candidates are serial philanderers?
Would you sit out the election to avoid voting for a philanderer?
Oh, I’m not saying French is damned to hell. I’m saying his judgement is lousy and will likely hurt people less, um, comfortably ensconced than himself. He’s giving advice, Augie. He’s saying good Christians should apply his test to the presidential candidates: worthy character and shared values — as if who’s on the other side of the equation is of no consideration. He’s saying the only way for Christians to shape the Party is for Christians to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. He’s delusional. And dangerously misguided.
You certainly are capable of discerning whether someone’s conscience is poorly formed and subject to self-righteousness. Like pornography, you know it when you see it.
Nope.
If that’s French’s choice he’s making a mistake.
If that was an argument for voting against Clinton–adultery all by itself as a sufficient reason not to vote for someone–French is ok to point out that some standards have shifted.
And if you add to the thought experiment that both candidates are going to do some real harm to the country, one can make the wrong call without being worthy of our disdain. An old-fashioned Respectable Position on Trump Number 5 is now discredited, but doesn’t make anyone who takes that position a jerk.
That’s fine. But understand the nature of the error. There IS such a thing as a situation where one should not opt for the lesser of two evils. French makes the wrong call, but that’s all I can find wrong here.
No, I really don’t. Not here. If anywhere, not often.
Solid point, but we’re not talking about people who voted for Hillary because they felt Leftism was morally superior. We’re talking about people who presented themselves as “true conservatives,” and look with disdain on conservatives who didn’t make the same decision.
Also, Mr. French didn’t say Trump was the greater of two evils or even equal. He said Trump was the lesser of two evils and still advocates sitting out the election.
The greater of two evils hasn’t objected so far.