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.
Who Knows If You Have Not Come into the Kingdom for Such a Time as This?
I come a day late to David French’s recent Corner Post: an open letter to Trump’s Evangelical defenders. Generally speaking, I don’t have much to say about Donald Trump, but I am an Evangelical, and a lot of my co-religionists would probably consider themselves, rightly, the target of French’s letter. I do not find him convincing on the point, but explaining so required more than a comment on the existing thread. Additionally, this is going to be a really inside-Evangelical theology throwdown, so just be advised.
First, let us address what he is right about: Evangelicals don’t necessarily subscribe to formal confessional documents, but I think you would get general assent that the purpose of a Christian is to know and glorify God. So far, so good; but French goes a step further than this. He claims that “defending” Trump is unChristian. I shall presume he does not mean this actually puts someone outside salvation, notwithstanding quoting a passage about apostasy, and that he just means “if you are a Christian defending Trump over Stormy Daniels, you are a bad Christian.”
There are a few immediate issues here: it is not clear what “defending” means, nor who this is actually aimed at. If we’re talking about positive statements in defense of Trump (the famous, and idiotic variant of the “King David” defense), then this isn’t so much an open letter to Evangelicals as an open letter to the two tenths of one percent of Southern Baptist Churches that were mad at Russell More, and also Jerry Falwell, Jr. and other assorted second generations of the Moral Majority. This is probably punching down (there aren’t that many Evangelicals of my acquaintance who would cite Falwell Minor or Franklin Graham as an authority), but so be it. You’ll find more citing Tony Perkins, but Perkins‘ statements are considerably more nuanced than “King David had an affair, too.” (They are much closer to the Exile narrative described below.)
If we expand the definition to cover the majority of Evangelicals who continue to approve of Trump’s performance even after the news of the affair broke in January, I think the invective is excessive. It is true that Evangelicals’ opinion on the importance of morality in public officials has reversed since 2011. I’m not sure polling really covers the actual beliefs of Evangelicals here -which are, in my experience, quite diverse -but taking only the top-line number, it is worth considering what has changed since 2011. I think French severely undervalues the difference in dispensation.
In the 1990s, Evangelicals defended the public morality trench until it was overrun. No less an authority than Rob Long said “it’s allowed now.” (No, I am not going to let this go.) We defended the Presidents shouldn’t lie trench. We defended the marriage is important trench. We defended the single-parenthood is bad trench. And we got blasted off the political battlefield. French acts as if those battle were never fought -let alone lost. French is wrong when he says Americans are souring on Christianity because of Trump. Americans soured on Christianity years ago -which is why they did nothing twelve years ago when Catholic Charities was run out Massachusetts, and they did nothing when the Obama HHS targeted religious employers and institutions. And they’re doing nothing now while California tries to cut off funding to students at religious schools, ban Christian literature, and drive religious adoption agencies out of Kansas, too. They’ll continue to do nothing while public universities drive religious groups off campus, stand by while Christians are driven from medicine, law, social work, or any other profession the Left can get its hands on, and whistle airily about how much more conflict there is in American politics as Christians are driven back behind their own doors. And then told that normal tax credits don’t apply to them, either.
And Americans ignored our warnings three decades ago when we said no-fault divorce was a bad idea. And two decades ago when we said single parenthood was a bad idea. And a decade ago when we said the rapid changes to the sexual culture of the US were going to result in immense misery and pain. And when the misery and pain arrived, we were mocked for trying to ameliorate it.
Americans have been ignoring Christians’ answers to these problems for a long time. And becoming hostile to them. To blame Christians who fled to Trump (and his judicial appointments) for protection from a political faction that openly boasted of its desire to strip them of their rights, shutter their organizations, and drive them from civilization is risible to the point of actual victim-blaming. And for that alone, David French has burned a lot of the good will he built up with me over the past decade.
I know that David French has gotten a lot of flak -up to and including death threats -for his stands. And so I will cut him a lot of slack for this because he is walking the walk. However; volunteering others for martyrdom is not much of an argument. Very few people think Gandhi’s suggestion that Jews walk passively into the gas chambers was good advice. Same applies here. This is basically the reverse of the old “not the hill to die on” argument. The hill to die on is the one that we were already forced off of. And of course, no one is going to actually do that. Convenient.
If French is writing as if we are still in the early 2000s, when you could imagine Christian moral politics mattered, the Evangelicals I know think we are in something much more like the Babylonian Exile. This is why the King David defense is bad. David actually was one of the Jews and held actual power over them. David’s sins were severe, he confessed them, and though God forgave him, not only David, but all Israel suffered for it. David’s sins are directly responsible for the civil war and division of the Kingdom after Solomon. No, if there’s a David comparison to be made, it’s that for the last several decades, America has been building up one heck of an indictment, and God has decided to finally pass judgment on us.
Thus the proper question to ask is how should the Church comport itself in Exile. There was no order of the Jews to convert the Persians. No doubt that is because of the difference in covenants between Israel and the Church. So abandoning evangelism is, of course, out of the question. But contra David French, we must actually defend the church. We can’t evangelize if we’re wiped out. That means relying on secular rulers who don’t share our beliefs. Further contra French, in the Bible this frequently required compartmentalizing politics and religion.
That probably means swallowing our pride in a few areas, too. Esther was forced into a pagan marriage that violated several Jewish laws. (There’s some debate as to the extent of her assimilation into Persian culture -the King seems surprised to learn that Mordecai is Jewish, for example.) When Haman tries to eliminate the Jews, Mordecai tells Esther to beg the king for defense, even if it gets her killed. “If you keep silent at this time, relief for the Jews will rise from another place, but you and your house will perish. And who knows if you have not come to the Kingdom for such a time as this?” Trump as Ahasuerus is not exactly the compliment comparison to David is, but it has the benefit of accuracy. Multiple wives, raging temper, ill-considered and intemperate orders that can’t be revoked… And also gave the Jews the space and the right to defend themselves against their attackers.
Trump is actually doing better than that. I’ve seen mocking of the idea that Trump asks Pence to pray for him at meetings. Maybe Trump is needling Pence -wouldn’t be surprised. But I don’t find it difficult to believe -he has to know that Evangelicals around the country are praying for him. Evangelicals pray for all our leaders (yes, they sounded a bit forced under Obama after about year 6, but we did it), but is it so hard, after a few prayers, to imagine that Trump came to appreciate it? And he’s done many things in office beyond the simple exchange of judges for votes -which alone would have been enough. He finally moved the Embassy to Jerusalem. We might see a breakthrough in Korea. I don’t particularly care about it, but we got tax reform. Trump has even demonstrated the capacity to, on occasion, not shoot his mouth off without thinking. Which leads to the next point of the Exile.
Jeremiah says to live peacefully in Babylon, and to seek the good of the city. They are told to plant gardens, build houses, marry, and have families. Conservative Evangelicals presumably do think that -despite living in a country that justly suffers divine interdict -that the policies Donald Trump is passing will be good for America. That it will benefit more than just Christians seeking to ride out the current madness. Maybe, if we’re very lucky, after the judgment, after the madness, after Trump -when the sky is done falling and everyone crawls out of the caves -maybe they’ll even reconsider listening to the church.
Which is the final stage of the Exile. Cyrus, predicted in Isaiah 45, allows the Jews to return to their homes. In Nehemiah, King Artaxerxes allows them to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem. Daniel was protected by Nebuchadnezzar, and while Daniel and his friends did not participate in the parties and idol worship of the king and his court, they did not attempt to stop them either, except through the example of their own behavior. They might have even converted Nebuchadnezzar to the faith after the fiery furnace incident. Later, they were protected by Belshazzar and Darius -Darius who even foolishly (and he knew it at the time) threw Daniel to the lions. What Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego demonstrated was that you can make a lot of accommodations to a pagan society. What you can’t do is engage in the behavior yourself. And all those accommodations and subordination to pagan kings were necessary to restore Israel.
We don’t control the government, nor is the government in any meaningful way the representative or tool of Evangelicals. In those conditions, I wouldn’t care if Trump were carrying on an affair now. He would be wrong to do so, but that is no longer our concern. And as things stand now — we can probably expect better than that bare minimum from Trump. Cyrus might be a bit much — but at least Darius or Nebuchadnezzar seems possible. Look, call me when Donald Trump asks us to bow down and worship an idol of gold in his image. It isn’t exactly out of the question, but it looks less likely by the day. Until then -we don’t live in a Christian society. We are exiles here -probably until the Son of God appears in the East.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I wonder if you will get called “Ever Trumper” for this.
Very well written, and much better than my post, which was one bitch.
Good job man.
Well written sir, I have one qualm with your argument with Mr. French. The basic premise I took away from his piece differed from yours. It was not necessarily a criticism of Evangelicals who support Trump, rather those who choose to rationalize or excuse some of Trump’s past behavior as not a big deal etc… It’s one thing to admit he has had some issues but on policy he was the best option in the general (not sure how that is justifiable in the primary), it’s entirely another to compare him to David and pretend accusations against him are creations of CNN.
I don’t disagree with this -but if this is his target, then it is a vastly smaller body of people than “Evangelicals,” or even “Evangelicals defending Trump.” He reads as if his target if Perkins -who many people support and listen to. And if his target is just the much smaller group, then his condemning of the Evangelicals for damaging their witness is uncalled for -the damage is being done by others and French is spreading the damage further by associating innocent Evangelicals with the many fewer -but much louder -ones.
It is reminiscent of the Alabama senate race, where a small fraction of Baptist pastors endorsed Roy Moore -none with a congregation over 100 people -but this was somehow an indictment of all Baptists in Alabama.
If French is targeting the endorsers, he needs to be a whole lot more precise with his aim.
Great post. Thanks.
Much of it went over my head; as a Roman Catholic, I like my religion bought and paid for.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a lot closer to Satan than Trump is. Trump won’t earn sainthood (do Evangelicals do that?) any time soon. But he ain’t HRC.
So that’s a win.
Exactly my own arguments.
The post is a pretty solid analogy to Old Testament / Torah scriptures, so it works even for an Orthodox catechumen like me.
I won’t, either. Ever.
Great post. I think French is trying to talk about his frustration at the cognitive dissonance of evangelical trumpsters that say “but hillary did XYZ” every time u try to critizice trump, but you’re right, French paints with too broad of a brush.
I have always wondered why some take umbrage when someone says “This isn’t a Christian country.” You explain the statement well, Sabredance.
Very good and interesting essay.
It has long been normative papal teaching that a Catholic confessional state is the ideal. Yet today, in most situations, that is not a practical possibility, and our Declaration and Constitution steer us towards a separation of Church and State. Yet we still have a moral duty to proclaim the Gospel, leading men to the true religion and the one Church of Christ. We should strive for the Gospel to inform the culture and legislation, but culture comes first. The Church must propose, but not impose.
I recall reading French’s article, and agreeing with his premise. Then I read your piece, and I find it most convincing and informative on many fronts.
With my limited Biblical knowledge, my mind went straight to VeggieTales “Rack, Shack and Benny” cartoon, but that’s my hangup.
Nebuchadnezzar is the one who constantly occurs to me.
There’s an application of the “but Her Annointedness is worse,” argument that can be effective. Given that HRC is at this point unarguably the most corrupt person ever to seriously be considered for the office of President, it’s a fair challenge to ask, “So did you vote for Hillary? Did you vote for Bill? then your protestations are hollow and hypocritical.”
Actually it occurred to me recently that there may be a worthy competitor for the epithet, “most corrupt.” Wasn’t there a Tammany Hall hack who was once suggested as a candidate? But if I recall correctly, that didn’t even fly in New York. Could it be that Tammany Hall had more morals than Her Annointedness?
An excellent challenge, which is why I hope it lands on the Main Feed, where it stands a better chance of French seeing it.
I think @sabrdance and I disagree on this, but I’m not sure where, or to what extent.
Speaking for myself, compartmentalization would be something along the lines of telling Trump to stop obfuscating and throwing his staff under the bus over this, remind everyone that the president’s never claimed to have lived a blameless life, and putting the focus back on policy and doing good public works. I think that’d actually be healthy for everyone involved and would probably work out well for the president.
Is that compatible with your vision?
I think so. I don’t know that I think it is required. Daniel and company did not gripe to the Babylonians about their myriad moral failures, but did give good advice to the King. Pre-Israel, this was what Joseph did in Egypt. When I think of compartmentalization, what I have in mind is that Christians can continue to work with a lying, conniving, sexually immoral president in order to accomplish normal political ends. Giving good advice to that president -like stop messing with your staff -is certainly also wise. But they may not sin themselves.
As I said above -French has been on the front lines defending against many of these abuses, which in many ways makes his position difficult for me to understand. It isn’t like he’s ignorant. And his past work earns him a lot of leeway. But I still found his open letter to be infuriating enough it took half the day for me to compose this.
There is original sin and French has found it: South Carolina evangelicals supported Trump and a new ball game was started. I was gobsmacked by Trump in SC during the primaries. I started reading about him from that point forward. Up to that point, I was just bemused and confused. After that, I knew something different was in the wind.
This was my reading too. My French has been quite clear that while he disagrees with the assessment he fully understands Evangelicals who voted for Trump out of self defense and I haven’t heard him criticize people for that vote.
Perhaps, although I have heard defenses of Trumos behavior from more than just evangelical talking heads. I’ve heard it from evangelicals I know personally. Regardless if the target really is so small why are so many people up in arms over it? French was very specific in the people he was addressing: ecangelicals defending the Stormy affair. If that isn’t you then don’t worry about it.
On Original Sin. There’s only one. And that’s not it. It’s not slavary either.
Since I’m not an Evangelical, I’ve watched French attack his fellow practitioners (parishioners?) with interest, but with some distance.
On one of the NR cruises, however, he was talking about Trump and character, etc, when someone took a shot at his argument with the example of Jimmy Carter, himself an Evangelical.
It was just an aside, and the format of the discussion didn’t allow for a response from French, but it was a good counterpunch.
The OP was the best counter-argument to French that I’ve read.
I must say this is the kind of excellent well written post that keeps me coming back to Ricochet. It helps prove that we really do have one of the smartest and most well informed memberships on the net.
Got it. We’re not too far off, then.
I agree with all of this. Trump is the president and we are all best served by him being given the best advice from the best people. As a general rule, I think conservative Christians give very good advice, so I’m all for them — or anyone of generally good character working with and for him, provided — as you say — that they do not engage in sin on his behalf.
IMHO, some of his servants have done this successfully; others have not.
Reading this, I went hot and cold and hot, etc.
I dont agree that the King David defense is ” idiotic”. It doesn’t stand alone, for one thing. And it’s not really a “defense”, so much as an explanation of the realities of human life.
and hey: to move to the NT: Jesus even forgave a woman who had an affair! But never mind about that.
I’m not an evangelical, whatever that means–my recollection from my upbringing is, it SHOULD describe all Christians. Who are they/ we, without The News?
And I love The Don!
So I’ll buy it if you’re saying there may be strong, intelligent people of lesser faith, or different creeds, who may nonetheless aid and succor the faithful, and be convinced to support them even if they don’t understand why. Baalam, Rahab, even to some extent Pilate, come to mind, in addition to Daniel’s royal bestie.
but I think, when powers and principalities are involved, the believers always have to be wise as serpents in choosing the most advantageous standard under which to rally.
Not “had” but was caught in flagrante delicto and brought forthwith. Funny – the scripture doesn’t mention her paramour.
Nevertheless, Jesus used her indiscretion to demand that those without sin cast the first stone (to carry out the punishment demanded by the law) – and while he wrote in the dirt, no one did. They just wandered away. He forgives her in the absence of her accusers.
Is David French without sin?
I hope David French sees this post.
The trouble I had with French’s article is that it simply didn’t make any sense. One can’t rebut the logic of an article when there isn’t any.
Everyone in the world is a sinner. When you defend a person, you are defending a sinner. When you ally yourself with someone, you are allied with a sinner. If you agree with someone, you are agreeing with a sinner.
What is Mr. French’s plan for doing otherwise?
Mr. French wasn’t discussing generic defenses of a sinner but rather specific defenses of a sinner sinning.
My recollection is that Jesus further instructed the adulteress to go an sin no more.
Not “Have your communications staff continue to lie to the public about purchasing the silence of a sex worker you banged a decade ago.”
That’s another question I have. Who is defending the sin? Is someone saying that Trump’s possible affair with Stormy Daniels is a good thing?
I love this.
We do not have to “defend” Trump to agree with his policies. Why should we have to? We didnt elect a pastor, a mister, a father, a husband. We elected someone to run the country. And he’s doing a great job..