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.
Where Honor and Christian Values Intersect
I’ve been surprised a lot of things over the past couple of years. Surprised at the outcome of the 2016 election. Pleasantly surprised at how conservative the Trump administration has been in a variety of ways. However, I think what has surprised me the most has been the reaction to these developments.
The left’s reaction is understandable, even if it is out of all proportion to reality. After all, they were beaten unexpectedly, which humiliated them. Within their reaction is also an element of existential panic — rarely does a single party control so many of the levers of power in the government. Think “2009 in reverse.”
For this, they have nobody to blame but themselves. This animation shows how the Democrat party has moved inexorably to the left over the past 20 years:
In polarized era, fewer Americans hold a mix of conservative and liberal views https://t.co/KNlbNeMyUt pic.twitter.com/TzCf3EPZzX
— Pew Research Fact Tank (@FactTank) October 23, 2017
The consequences of their leftward lurch are that they stand essentially at a historically low ebb in terms of controlling local and state elected positions. When viewed through the lens of the left’s problems, the right ought to be ecstatic. Yet, we aren’t.
As we all know, there is considerable internecine disquiet on our side of the aisle, much of it centered around the person of the President himself. Curiously, nobody seems to disagree that Mr. Trump’s biography and habits leave something to be desired. Even more curious is that except for the most deranged Never-Trump types (specifically the Jen Rubins, Bill Kristols, and Max Boots of the world) there is general agreement that he has governed in a fashion which conservatives universally agree has been productive for our stated policy goals.
The part that I said was surprising has been the lengths to which some — especially, Christians — have gone to defend the President. Previously frowned-upon behaviors in politicians like “lying” or “infidelity” suddenly elicit no more than a shrug from many Evangelicals and similar groups.
This development has left many people confused. Why the turnabout? Aren’t Christians who are nominally committed to notions like honesty, fidelity, faith, humility and temperance concerned that a President who acts in a fashion antithetical to those values will have the effect of enabling people to engage in those frowned-upon behaviors?
On top of that, pointing out that those previously stated norms have been violated will typically get you tossed in the category of wanting to help the left. It’s vexing. The answer to why this is has nothing to do with pointing out Trump’s assault on their values, however.
They’re upset about it because they think you’re insulting their honor. Let me explain.
Everybody is a mixture of identities. In the case of most Christians, their values and their identities are practically inseparable. However, American Christians — particularly those ranging from Appalachia to the South — are possessed of multiple strands of identity, which sometimes evince different priorities than their nominal affiliations might suggest. Many of them descend from Scots-Irish stock which is rich in its valuation of honor. They’re clannish. Stubborn. Those familiar with Jim Webb’s Born Fighting (or J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy) will understand what I’m talking about.
Donald Trump is nothing if not an exemplar of that sort of Scots-Irish attitude. He confronts and shames those who challenge his honor. He doesn’t “play the Ref” or appeal to intellectual arguments, but busts his opponents in the mush. Even if he doesn’t reflect the Christian values which are so closely related to the identity of many of his supporters, he reflects a different, and at times more deeply held aspect of their being — an affiliation of which Christian values are part but not paramount. Everybody will remember this conversation being played out over and over at Ricochet: “But he fights,” was a not-uncommon refrain heard during the primary and election of 2016 — a strong rallying cry for some yet one which rings hollow to many people who don’t share that identity.
The President may not be one of them, but they believe he is with them, nonetheless.
As a result, what we’re really seeing is a sort of culture-clash within the tent of Conservatism itself. The call to solidarity which the President’s brash and courageous attitude evokes results in his followers interpreting an attack upon Him is an attack upon them … and the honor of their people.
How closely American Christians choose hew onto to President Trump is going to leave a mark much longer lasting than his Presidency — more upon them than him, surely — and it would seem as if it’s worth at least thinking about which part of their identity they’re seen serving in doing so.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
You mean to tell me Christians no longer believe lying and infidelity are wrong??? Because, Trump?? Wow, that is surprising! And absurd.
And, why does everyone pick on the evangelicals? Could it be they’ve been caricatured as judgmental, prudish fundamentalists? Just like Catholics don’t like sex because they hew to certain sexual moral teachings… just ask their twelve children.
Maybe if you want to know why Christians support Trump despite his personal failures, you should try asking them.
For starters, Christianity is a faith of second chances (third, fourth, …. seven times seventy (7 indicating perfection)). The belief that DJT truly loves his country and its people (MAGA) and is doing yeoman’s work to improve her is both refreshing (after 8+ years of condescension and America weakening and bashing) and carries a lot of weight with me. I’m not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.
On a political level, I could only be happier with DJT if he was Hercules cleaning out the Stygian Stables of the DOJ, FBI, etc. In my religious perspective, I have a lot of hope for DJT. I think he’s becoming a better person — being sanctified — by this trial. Christians might wish to be his Barnabas (encourager), not his Saul (persecutor). Have you considered that?
God has a history of choosing the most unlikely figures to accomplish his plans — Moses the spoiled prince of Egypt, Rahab the whore, David the shepherd boy, Mary the humble servant who became the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven. I’m not saying God elevated DJT to the presidency (I don’t know God’s mind) — I’m saying, why would we (He) not? People at least as flawed as Trump have been pivotal players in (salvation) history.
I would say the same thing to you:
There’s a difference between a strategic vote and going to the mattresses for the guy.
I’m still not sure how I insulted you, but you are doing a great job of thesis confirmation.
Oh, so if Clinton was President right now, it would not matter? The winner of 2016 matters. Without Trump winning, we would not see the reality of the DOJ. It all would have been swept under the rug. That matters. Maybe you don’t care about it. Maybe a hard leftist on the Supreme Court does not matter to you either. Trump’s win has long lasting effects. Supporting him over Clinton in the election is never a dead letter. Anyone who wanted him to lose wanted Clinton to win. That was the only other option. And wanting her to win means wanting the DOJ to get away with it. It means wanting a liberal judge on SCOUTS and other judges. It means wanted more executive orders to advance the liberal agenda. That is what a Clinton victory would have meant.
Rabid? Really, you are better than that.
People here are not defending Trump, the are defending themselves! You attacked them. You are saying people betrayed their faith and they defend themselves, and you cite that as being right. It would be as if I hit you and when you hit me back, I offered that as proof of you being violent.
Perhaps, as I’ve taken great pains to explain in multiple, well thought-out posts, I view morality as a set of principles which undergird society and don’t belong to one particular religious sect.
Well, if I’m forced to buy a product, it seems stupid to not get paid back at least a little bit (considering I’ll pay in far more than I’ll ever get out.”
No doubt. Now we have the situation where we elected Trump and all of the things that entails.
If it was a binary choice as many insist it was, that doesn’t mean that Donald Trump was on the side of the Angels, does it?
You yourself have criticized Trump just this morning. Why are you supporting Hillary, etc…?
Some of the things you want probably aren’t on the menu.
How have I “gone to the mattresses” for the guy? What you see in this thread is not people defending the President. You see people defending themselves from the charge of hypocrisy that is thrown at them two or three times a week on Ricochet. It’s tiresome. It’s boring. It’s annoying. And it needs to stop.
But then maybe, as EJHill suggested, you’re just trying to sow division.
I don’t think I attacked them. I said that they have multiple strands of identity, and that Trump falls into a parallel set of values that many of those people hold.
I made an observation, which seems to be accurate given the nature of the response.
Then they should stop that.
If the shoe doesn’t fit, why do you insist upon wearing it?
You really are tone deaf then. Your implication that voting for or supporting Trump means selling out of these values. Your statement above goes beyond just support. It implies that even voting for the man (for that makes him the President) is selling out.
And then, after telling Christians that have sold you, you say it confirms our thesis.
Typical atheist moralizing. Those stupid faithful, believing in their sky god.
I’ve aaked before in similar posts how any disapproval that evangelicals feel about Trump’s personal life should manifest itself.
I have relatives who are evangelicals and a best friend who is the most orthodox Catholic I’ve ever met.
I know they disapprove of my son who is living with his girlfriend and family friends who are a gay married couple.
Whenever my son’s name comes up – no matter the context, should they say “too bad he’s living in sin”? Should they refuse to be seated at the same table as our gay friends or refuse to attend an event where they are there?
Are they hypocrites for being polite and friendly to my gay friends and to sincerely care about my son ?
From what I can see, Trump’s past sins are between him and God and whomever the wronged party was. I have enough to worry about without appropriating someone else’s offense.
And I’m not. I want to win, politically. However, I think many people need to come to grips with who we have elected President. I think I have.
Trump is a mixture of good and bad things. To the extent that he does the good things, I cheer him. When he does things I disagree with, I boo. Has Trump done anything which you disagree with? Seriously.
Hillary would have been what Trump did here. Does not make sense, and was not what I was saying.
yep
Now you’re in Pee Wee Herman territory: “I know you are but what am I?”
No on here has said “You attacked Trump, therefore you attacked me”. That is the core of your thesis. You are calling people sell outs.
Has any Christian in this thread said anything different that this? Please link to that post.
In fact, please post a link to where, on Ricochet, anyone has said that Trump is only good.
Politics is the art of the possible, Bryan.
No, what I said was more of a rhetorical question. The point I’m making is that in general, voting for Trump is totally understandable given the paucity of choices.
What isn’t understandable is the lengths some have gone to to defend every utterance or decision the man has made. That’s the difference. My point is the exact opposite of what you’re thinking I said: voting for Trump need not imply purchasing the entire package. A vote is just a vote.
Seems to me that is what the Christian voters thought too, Shawn.
Who here is doing that? You are saying your thesis is proven. You are saying I have proven it with my statements even while acknowledging I have some stuff I don’t like. So which is it? An I a Trump acolyte throwing away my values for “honor” or am I rational voter?
I think you’re too eager to take offense.
But that’s just me. You are the one who has been taking after me personally above, correct?
Beyond that: give me a break Bryan. We’ve spoken to each other personally. I rather appreciated it. Do you suspect me of intentionally insulting you in that manner or do you think I’m at least a fair guy?
I did not say that morality is personal. I merely said that responses to polling are situational. I do not believe that morality has changed, but it’s importance for any individual candidate changes based on the other circumstances surrounding that candidate. Is this not true about virtually everything? The problem is, you are expecting it to be the only factor, rather than simply an important factor.
I always read a piece from Shawn in context- he is a nice guy, but overtly atheist, and the inference is that “Christians” are what you see on ABC when you need a quote for a “Religious Right” story and either Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell are the only people in the smartphone memory.
Actually “Christians” are Tim Keller, who is not political, or Rick Warren who is kind of middle of the road, or Gregory Boyd and NT Wright (Fleming Rutledge for those missing the female view) who are explicitly on the left (along with Ben Witherington, Tony Campolo, etc.). Franklin Graham is certainly to the Right, but only peripherally in politics. Mark Lanier (the well-known trial lawyer) is nominally a Republican, but really stays out of politics.
So many of those who comment about Christians come from the perspective of Dawkins or Sam Harris- that is, benighted people who ignorantly believe in God and that Jesus was a real person who was also His Son. This popular image of Christianity among the “intellectual”, usually Left, group, is of fundamental Baptists in the Southern Bible Belt who only glance occasionally at the King James Version of the Bible because it was good enough for the Apostle Paul. If you want to see more of this, read the Mississippi-based Quinn Colson book series by Ace Atkins.
In TrumpWorld, a “Christian” is simply a demographic group, not an accurate description of its members. But there is a legitimate core issue- and it is not race, gay marriage, abortion (though even left-wing evangelicals abhor it), prayer in schools, or anything of the sort. It is the freedom to be Christian without the government hacking away at those freedoms.
Lots of Christians voted against Trump (like Mark Hemingway, I voted for McMullin, who turnout to be a nut and an idiot), but also oppose the Obama-Hillary-Dem-Left consensus that the US should not have freedom of religion or religious conscience, only the “freedom to worship” in ways approved of by Obama’s administrators and judges, where religious freedom ends when the DoJ says that minority “rights” or “a woman’s right to choose” must take precedence over the words and actions of Jesus.
I would still have trouble voting for Trump (despite approval of many of his actions I don’t know that I trust him, but I also have some issues with militant Johnny-one-note NeverTrumpers), but it is perfectly understandable to me why a Christian- whether moderate or fundamentalist- would decide that voting for an immoral and unethical, self-absorbed juvenile is the right thing when the key issue is preserving actual freedom of religion without government interference.
I think it’s evident that you’re wound up. I see little reason why that should be the case.
Let’s examine this for a moment though: where was Trump’s support especially strong? Right in the heart of Scots-Irish territory. Are you going to tell me that this identity doesn’t explain at least a bit of that support – and now, the aggression which people display in defense of their actions?
It doesn’t even seem that controversial of an observation.
Goodness, no – and no need to be sarcastic. What I am saying is that responses to polling will vary based on the timing of the polls! How is that so difficult to see? Bill Clinton was doing these things at the time the questions were being asked. It was very real and right up front. Trump, love him or hate him, is not behaving that way in office. That doesn’t change the nature of the acts for anyone, but it changes their relevance to national politics, and their responses to polling.
When a story has in its headlines “Christian values” and then goes forth to question them, in this case, voting for and defending Trump, I think the intended motive is to get the hackles up of Christians. There’s a difference between supporting a candidate based on his policy views and not supporting some of his past or even present personal behavior.
I may support someone who is a drug addict, who works, pays taxes, goes to church, tries to be a good parent, but I don’t condone the drug behavior. The Bible is full of true stories where God does his best work in the most flawed. The day someone steps forth for president who isn’t flawed, I would be very worried. Also, casting the first stone applies.
Embedded in the bolded portion is, I think, the assumption that people imitate the qualities of their leaders. It’s similar to the complaints of social conservatives 20 years ago, that Bill Clinton had made marijuana, and certain sexual practices more socially acceptable. The counter-argument (if I remember correctly from so long ago) was that a politician’s private and public life should not be conflated, and that the president shouldn’t be blamed for what other people chose to do.
If religious conservatives are less likely to make the same argument today, I suggest it is another indication that we theo-cons are more libertarian than we used to be. I think, since 1998, I’ve become both more socially conservative, and more libertarian. Perhaps I’m not alone.
It seemed to me that the general tilt of your justification of this is that people are in essence “lying” to pollsters almost out of spite. I don’t really understand why people would be that way. It’s a totally legitimate means of expressing opinions. Polluting the sample isn’t going to help anybody.
So, what I said then.
I’m only frustrated Ryan because I am trying to have a good faith discussion here, and I’m receiving what I view as a lot of bad faith from people.
I think that you are not hearing how your message comes across. You know what you meant to say, and when people take offense, you come across a smug. “See, your being angry shows me just how right I am about you selling out”. That is what it sounds like you are saying.
I find it funny that people use the fact that they feel insulted, as evidence that the author has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about because he’s a dirty atheist and therefore cannot comprehend what is happening, when this reaction is exactly what the dirty atheist said was happening.
An interesting thought. It does fit with the notion that Christians are generally speaking for freedom of association (a libertarian impulse if ever there were one) but I do wonder if it is a broadly shared impulse among more people.
My feelings about it are… complicated. But I appreciate the input.