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
Exactly!! We’re saying we don’t care. Okay? We just…don’t. And why should we?
This problem extends beyond the David French article to pieces written by others. There are a few semi-influential Christians who discount, or even worse, seem to celebrate Pres. Trump’s moral failings. If they are the intended target, then they deserve the reprimands.
I’m not sure how much credence to give polling on evangelical beliefs since “evangelical” is such a fluid category. At one time, evangelical was a descriptor for Christians who were not members of Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or perhaps Anglican, Churches.
Now I’m not sure that evangelical is a very precise way to label some Christians. I’ve been working with Christians for many years and I rarely have heard someone refer to himself as an evangelical. If anything, an evangelical would probably be “someone else,” particularly if evangelical is seen as the equivalent of “fundamentalist.”
In short, I’m not convinced that slapping an appellation of “evangelical” on some Christians is all that helpful since evangelical beliefs are so diverse, perhaps even as diverse of Christians who would not describe themselves as evangelicals.
Well, at least he’s doing a good job.
The current sin is having his staff lie about the hush-money.
Again, this is totally unnecessary. Trump could easily say that he’s never claimed to have led a blameless life, stop requiring people to lie and obfuscate on his behalf, and invite the Democrats to keep talking about his sex life while he busies himself with Making America Great Again.
I wouldn’t be crazy about it, but it’d be vastly superior to the current situation and would probably play to Trump’s favor.
I’m also kind of weirded out when Christians talk about Trump as if he is utterly unforgivable and irredeemable. I understand when non-Christians do it, but, wow, it’s so, um, un-Christian. Kind of misses the point, don’t you think?
Great post!
I’ve described serious Christians as “resident aliens,” but “exiles” is even better.
This is me just spitballing -but I think there’s 2 things going on with this. 1.) Trump just has regular ego problems. While I am beyond worrying about Trump -hardly led a blameless life, go and sin no more, et cetera -Trump himself may not want to admit fault, and (I’m less certain about this -again, I’m beyond worrying about it) be unwilling to brag about it either. Best theory I’ve heard thus far is that this really does stem from his wanting to protect his wife and son -though by this point that ship has sailed. I wonder if there might not be some aspect of “come on, we all know how this works -men lie about past affairs, and everyone accepts it” and his ego won’t let it go. 2.) While a normal sex scandal tied to campaign finance (see: Edwards, Jonathan) would be a slap on the wrist -Trump would not be given that consideration. If Michael Steele and Joe Scarborough call it a waste of resources, I’ll be stunned.
because he knows it will be used in the arsenal of destruction aimed at him.
That’s completely rational.
I think Trump is actually pretty brazenly honest. He might even be “mentally incontinent.” He always says what he thinks. ;-)
Good question. This is where I reside.
I have great respect for Mr. French and agree with him that we cannot condone this behavior, but who is defending the sin? Who in the evangelical community has said that this was Christian behavior?
Right but there are those that do defend the behavior out of a belief that any criticism whatsoever somehow taints the good things Trump accomplishes. This is not Mr. French’s view nor is it mine. It’s perfectly possible to criticize the failings and praise the good things.
Here’s a radical idea: treat Trump as you would any other politician. Imagine this was Rubio or Bush, would you excuse things you didn’t like just because they did some things you did?
Fine, but some people do care about these things, including many evangelicals, is it okay if they criticize these failings?
NO. Not right now. No.
So you’re against others expressing their opinions?
I make no claim to being a theologian, (or any type of credible scholar,) but these sentences resonated with me. It seems to me, the Devil is rarely so transparently obvious. Trump has rather a lot of gold, in his apartment, plane, golf club and buildings bearing his name. These examples can, without a doubt, be considered created in his image. And the attitude that ‘Finally, a billionaire, a personage of the elite class, who understands us and speaks for us,’… could… possibly… with great trepidation, suggested… might be… perilous.
Edit: Just to be clear, I find it very unlikely that DT is the Anti-Christ. I just have trust issues and an overly active imagination, which results in low-level paranoia.
Well, at least that’s clear.
I disagree with H on this, but I do not have to respect the evangelical (or other) criticism fixated on President Trump when the Left has come within a hair’s breadth of total victory. I reserve the right to counter the criticism with criticism of my own. I consider it unhelpful, at best, and subversive to the conservative cause, at worst, to echo the enemy’s narrative (even if it’s (sometimes) true).
Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter probably never cheated on their wives. They were still dangerously foolish and destructive presidents. I oppose them because of their ideology. I don’t appreciate being distracted from aiming my criticism at that.
Danger on the Left.
I’m an Evangelical. My Bible study group has been going through a series by Atlanta-area pastor Andy Stanley. One of the lessons was about judging sexual sin.
A lot of people — especially non-Christians– like to cite the “judge not lest ye be judged” line. This seems to be at odds with the part of 1 Corinthians he was covering, in which Paul was advising the Cornithians to expel a sexually immoral church member.
Stanley’s take was something like: “The Bible doesn’t tell us not to judge. It tells us who to judge.” Stanley argued that we who follow Jesus are supposed to judge each other, but not judge those who don’t follow Jesus. Why in the world should I expect someone who doesn’t follow Jesus to act like someone who does?
This doesn’t mean that we say that sin is not a problem. It just means that it’s not generally our job to condemn those who are not believers. God will take care of that. Here’s what Paul wrote (in 1 Corinthians 5):
I do not believe that President Trump is a Christian. My impression is that he doesn’t really understand what it means. Now, he may claim to be a Christian, in which case Paul’s advice would be to expel him from my fellowship of believers. Well, he’s not in my fellowship of believers, which is my local church.
I do not defend President Trump’s misbehavior. I simply do not believe that it is productive to focus on such misbehavior, especially as this would play into the hands of the political Left — a Left that French himself recognizes as an appalling threat to Christian believers.
Here is a link to French’s article from 2015 on the dangers of the pro-SSM Left. It’s a good article, in which he confesses that he erroneously supported SSM in 2004, despite his professed Christianity, and that he had changed his mind.
I never made that error. It would be nice if French, after such a grevious mistake on a major policy issue, would have more humility toward, and faith in, his fellow believers who did not make that mistake.
I believe he is a nascent Christian — or maybe a prenatal one. He is having some profound eye-opening experiences in his current position. He’s definitely coming to understand self-sacrifice. He could be living a cushy, gold-plated life in Manhattan and Mar a Lago, with his gorgeous wife and family and without all the headaches and abuse. I don’t think he gets near enough credit for the cross he bears for the love of country.
He needs Christian encouragement. We should be his Barnabas, not his Saul.
There are a couple of potentially useful Old Testament stories on dealing with immoral, pagan. rulers.
Before he became king and after being hunted repeatedly by King Saul, David actually fled and went over to serve one of the Philistine kings. David even offered the services of himself and his followers in the Philistine campaign that ended in the death of Saul and Jonathan (and a couple of other sons), but was rejected. It is not clear whether David knew that his offer would be rejected. I don’t think that he would have actually fought Saul, as he had two chances to kill Saul and spared him on both occasions because David would not kill the “Lord’s annoited,” meaning the properly selected King Saul, even though Saul had gone dreadfully astray.
David is not criticized for this action, and is held up as a paragon of virtue except for: (1) the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah, and (2) a census that David ordered of his military forces (which seems to be a pride problem).
The prophet Daniel served a series of Babylonian and Medeo-Persian kings, horrid as they were. He actually won a couple of them over by his virtue, faith, and wisdom. One of those pagan kings allowed the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. Perhaps if Daniel had been as fastidious as Mr. French, the Jews would have never returned to Israel. That would have been a bit of a problem, because a certain supremely important descendant of one (or more) of those returning Jewish exiles was destined to be born in Bethlehem a few centuries later. (Zerubbabel was one of the leaders of the return as discussed in Ezra and Nehemiah; he is an ancestor of Jesus in the geneology in Matthew 1.)
I also want to follow up on my prior comment about expelling a professing Christian believer who sins. First, this is not a rule of automatic, immediate expulsion. Jesus gave instructions in Matthew 18 about this, involving private, one-on-one admonishment, correction, and encouragement, and if this is ineffective, escalation to the same with one or two other followers, and then if this is ineffective, escalation to the local church as a whole, with eventual expulsion.
The interesting part is what Jesus said about the expelled church member — “treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Remember who wrote this part. Matthew. The former tax collector. How did Jesus treat him? Well, he didn’t shun him or refuse to associate with him. To the contrary, the Pharisees were constantly criticizing Jesus for associating with sinners and tax collectors. He loved them and served them and healed them and spoke the truth.
He did the same for pagans, like the Samaritan woman at the well.
In conclusion, I don’t think that the proper Christian approach to President Trump is anywhere close to being as clear as the self-righteous Mr. French suggests.
I’m hopeful that the President may come around, I just don’t think that he’s done so yet. I do pray for him when I remember to, which is never as often as I should.
Sorry to be so verbose. I want to clarify something about my prior post about Andy Stanley. When Stanley talked about not judging nonbeleivers, he made it clear that he was talking about our private interactions with them, not about public policy or legal issues. I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with a Christian supporting public policies based on Christian principles, or judging nonbeleivers according to the established law of the land, for example as a judicial officer or juror.
This is by far the most illuminating discussion on this topic anywhere. Excellent.
Morning Sabrdance and Arizona,
To add to Arizona’s Andy Stanley comments, Charles Stanley has a series of life principles. Life principle 18 (I think it 18), is that a child of God is never the victim of circumstances. That would mean that as Charles would say, God directs all the events of our personal lives and of all history, if Americans are dying of despair, God knows their despair and is with them, God would have known of Trump’s victory, yes, and directed it. Mr. French worries that the support some Christians have given Trump will ruin their witness, that maybe God’s plan, I do not know, but although Trump may have ruined politics, conservatism, the FBI, the NFL, etc. to the nth power, Trump has not ruined Christianity, and to become so depressed about the behavior of others is to loose focus on tending one’s own garden. If Mr. French sees folks who have become confused about their faith, he should privately pray for them and privately go them and maybe even rebuke them, or he could publicly confess his sins so as to model, his need for redemption. Focusing on the failings of Trump and those who support him, feels good because it takes the focus off our own failings, and takes our own failings out of the spotlight. I will get farther if I focus on my failings and my need for God’s direction.
You guys think you scored on me?
Y’know, my mom was from St. Louis where the good folk were holding Bundt meetings On the eve of our entry into WWII.
Is it “okay” that they were doing that?
It’s legal, but, uh, what is it the Left would say? Oh yeah: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
Would it’ve been “okay” during the tense days of the Cuban missile crisis to criticize JGK for frolicking in the WH swimming pool with a different nymph every afternoon?
We’re at war now, and people should pick a side and support it unequivocally. For the duration. In my humble opinion, of course…
(changed my mind about this comment so deleted it..)
I think it was just Bund. Bundt is a kind of cake, I think.
Oh my GOD!! And here she thought they were Nazis, when it was just a culinary club?!? 😂
Thanks for the correction!
Well said. But “exile” is the wrong word. Even while Christianity is forced from the public square in many ways throughout the country, most Americans continue to self-identify as Christians. The Body of Christ was never confused for a political entity. But the disunity among American Christians today on public ethics is extraordinary.
I couldn’t care less about scoring points.
Banging your war drums isn’t as persuasive as you think it is, especially when your warmongering is done from behind a keyboard and a pseudonym. Stand to post soldier! Grab your rifle and shoot some leftists! Or were you not serious about this being an actual war?
Who are these people and where are they?
Defending the behavior and saying it’s irrelevant are two different things.