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.
Christianity Today Supports Trump’s Impeachment: ‘Therefore, What?’
I put these thoughts together after receiving a text from a Christian friend. Sorry, it’s a bit long. I’m still working through my ideas. Interested in people’s responses.
As 2019 came to a close, many in the Christian evangelical community were rattled by the publication of an editorial in Christianity Today in which the author argues that Donald Trump should be both impeached and removed from office and chastises evangelicals who continue to support him: “Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency,” the author chides.
Fair-minded people could probably debate the Christianity Today article. What I have a problem with is how people—mostly unbelievers, many of them left-leaning or progressive, and some of them former Christians—are promoting the article as if suddenly there’s truth to be found in a Christian magazine. It’s not as if these people read the magazine for its spiritual or doctrinal content; it’s also not as if any of them would love to meet for a glass of wine to discuss things having to do with the Christian faith in general, let alone the impact of the Christian message on their own lives. Rather, they share this piece prominently on (where else) social media for no other reason than to bludgeon evangelical Christians who have the gall to support Donald Trump despite his obvious moral and cognitive failings.
What bothers me is the implication of their tsk tsks. Setting aside whether the articles of impeachment are valid or were politically motivated by an opposition party that was determined to impeach Trump before he was even inaugurated (I happen to believe the latter); and setting aside whether or not previous presidents could have been impeached for greater or even similar offenses but weren’t; and setting aside what amounts to gut-level disdain for Trump the man as opposed to Trump the president (and by Trump the man I’m referring to his coarseness and crudeness and moral failings and even his supposed “unfitness” for office, which, truth be told, I’m not sure is a fair or valid criticism); setting aside these things—all of which have been debated and discussed over the past three years and are still unresolved—I still have to ask those who are scolding evangelicals for continuing to support Donald Trump in spite of it all: Therefore, what?
Yes, it’s true: Trump is crude. Trump is boorish. Trump is impulsive. Trump is not presidential. Trump is impetuous. No argument here. I never liked Donald Trump. I never watched “The Apprentice.” I don’t think I even gave Trump a minute’s thought until the moment he rode down that elevator. And during the months leading up to the 2016 election, I grew more and more depressed as one by one my preferred candidates fell away. I remember texting a friend one day and asking if it was wrong for me to wish Trump would choke on a piece of steak. But once he became the nominee, I had to face facts, and ultimately I came to the conclusion that disputes about morals and values or personal likes or dislikes have no place in a presidential election when faced with a binary choice. A binary choice is what we were faced with in 2016. “Pick your poison,” I remember posting on Facebook as election day drew near. And a binary choice is what we’re faced with in 2020.
So, to my leftist friends, to my ex-Christian friends, and even to my well-meaning fellow evangelical friends who tsk, tsk those of us who will either reluctantly or enthusiastically support Trump in 2020: Therefore, what? I may agree that Trump is all that you say, but do you seriously expect me to vote for your guy or gal? Even the tamer Dems vying for the nomination have no place in the universe of core conservative objectives that I value. The Democratic party has veered so far left — both in terms of the economy and in terms of social issues — that frankly I’m surprised anyone who hews even remotely to the center would consider aligning themselves with it.
So that’s the dilemma I’m faced with as I listen to the smug self-righteousness of those who promote the Christianity Today editorial as if it were the equivalent of the gospel. As if they really think someone like me is either going to vote Democrat or withhold a vote for a Republican when the country has become so polarized. The time is long past when our country had a strong “center,” politically speaking. I pray it returns, but meanwhile we’re in the midst of a cultural war, and Trump, for all his obnoxious and revolting ways, is, at least for now, the person blocking the threshold to the progressive left’s wave of cultural and economic transformation.
If anything, I’m disappointed that influential Christians like those at Christianity Today can’t unite against the left. Instead, I’m detecting the stench of “wokeness” emanating from the church, and the most “woke” Christians are those who hate Trump. This troubles me much more than any of the church’s supposed blindness towards Trump’s flaws. The way I see it, Trump is just a blip. He’s here now for one term, maybe two, but eventually he’ll be gone, both parties will survive, and our country will carry on. Societal change, cultural change, on the other hand, once it’s permeated the culture, will remain long after he’s gone.
Which brings me back to the Christianity Today editorial. Christians are being called on the carpet for apparently abandoning their mission (I’m thinking about the era of the Moral Majority) as long as their “gladiator” is in the ring. Can we Christians re-evaluate that era? Can we perhaps concede that it was wrong to obsess about the moral character of leaders? Can we agree that politicians are not pastors? Talk radio host Dennis Prager describes how, back during the Clinton impeachment, he never mentioned even Monica Lewinsky’s name on his radio show. The sex life of public officials was not his concern (he says). It’s the job politicians do that matters, not their private morals. And Prager is an observant Jew.
Do I agree? I think I do. I would add that Donald Trump is not the first boorish man ever to hold public office, nor will he be the last. Voters can look at what a leader does or advocates and analyze the effect of these actions or policies on the things they value. What else can we do? Again, we’re not electing pastors.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Elaine,
Regarding the first sentence and the last, and the intervening, Amen. If we have to be labeled, I’m an Elaineist.
Yep. Nobody seems to acknowledge that Trump is a different person than he was 5 years ago. He is a good guy now. He seems love his family, he supports life, and works hard in his job. He accepts more unjust criticism than anyone else who has ever lived. That is exactly the turn-around Christians are *supposed* to hope for. Maybe it is just an act, but that is not for us judge.
The point is supposedly to get you to stay home and not vote out of shame and despair. I think the shame and despair are the real point.
They despise Trump voters / supporters and want to insult us because we are horrible people.
Therefore, what? is the perfect response to someone who’s attempting to point out a perceived hypocrisy, when really, we’re all just voting for the best (or least bad) choice we’ve got. But that’s not hypocrisy. It’s realpolitik.
True. But if we’re not careful, this argument can morph into a submissive acceptance of the all-too-common (even on Ricochet!) and childish reflex of “what-aboutism”.
These people need to take a long hard look at themselves because to claim that G-d has revealed His preference for how you cast your presidential vote is using the Lord’s name in vain.
Overstates the case a bit, but when I read this I thought of Trump:
I think “more… than anyone else who has ever lived” is a bit of an overstatement, but I do agree with the spirit of this comment. I am not privy to the President’s private life and conversations, but I find his speeches to be stirring and empathetic as befitting a person of his office.
I believe that anyone who even wants to be President and deal with those who hold the higher offices of governments can’t be a shrinking violet and will necessarily step on some toes. There are just too many conflicting agendas for it to be avoided. Based on results, I think Mr. Trump is doing quite well.
This might be their therefore what:
Your disappointment in them over a political matter signaling to them they’re not welcome in the Christian tribe, or at least not your Christian tribe.
When Trump is treated as the champion of America’s true Christianity, he becomes more central to that Christianity’s identity. This is inevitable. It can’t be avoided by saying you don’t intend it to happen: it will happen. To some extent. Maybe greater or lesser, depending on how you spin it, but it won’t not happen.
And therefore what?
Paraphrasing from a discussion we had recently in Ricochet’s PIT,
If A, B, and C vote for Trump, and treat voting for Trump as a Christian duty and therefore a key component of Christian identity, then onlookers X, Y, and Z who don’t vote for Trump may feel like such a poor tribal fit for A, B, and C’s religion that they’ll be discouraged from exploring what could be saving faith. Now, could a bit of tribal mismatch really keep God from someone God truly wants to save? Maybe not. Still, there’s demographic data suggesting that political division has increasingly begun driving religious affiliation.
Perhaps now is the time to put political hardball over general evangelizing tactics — after all, won’t it be even harder to evangelize if Christianity virtues itself into being a spent political force? That said, there are Christians, including conservative and Trump-voting Christians, concerned that over-identification with the Republican party and with Trump in particular damages Christian witness. As the Babylon Bee satirizes, “I’m A Christian, And I’m A Republican, But I Repeat Myself”.
Just a thought-
I did not read the editorial, but the articles of impeachment dictate the two issues under consideration. Neither of them say anything about “Christian values.” One may think Trump should or should not be impeached and one may think that Trump does or does not act like a true Christian, but those are two entirely different questions. Evangelicals may be uncomfortable with Trump’s personal morality, but that has nothing to do with the merits of this impeachment.
I don’t think Trump is a Christian. Hope I am wrong, for his and his family’s sake. I suspect his Democrat opponent will not be Christian, and will have significant animus against Christians. I think I will chose the non Christian who benefits the nation the most and hurts the church the least.
Yes, I understand your point.
I don’t consider Trump as the champion of Christianity. I don’t even consider him a Christian. That’s not the point I was trying to make.
There seems to be this tug and pull (at least, in my mind) between faith/prayer and political involvement/influence. This may be one of the unresolved issues in the church: we’re in the world but not of it, but does that mean we remove ourselves from the political process? New Testament verses give some direction: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God,” “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.”
And what about the core mission of the church, the saving of souls? But to cloister ourselves? To stand aside and do or say nothing while secular forces overwhelm our culture?
The English are born as Anglicans. I suspect Trump is probably a little more committed in his Christianity than that – he is likely a de facto Christian.
There are many who believe in G-d, believe in Christ, but don’t know much about either except that they expect people to behave themselves but will forgive them if they don’t.
Pretty much the third-to-last floor of theology* below which you get ‘the Force’, but still Christian enough that they could make the gate.
_________________
*Judaism and Islam sold separately.
The New Testament is not as clear regarding a democracy as it might be since we are to some degree our own Caesar and governing authorities.
Caesar, though not elected, was – as out-of-town tyrants go – a pretty good ruler for Judea in the grand scheme of things.
I think it is a mistake to assume a Christian (bona fides or soi disant) would always be the best choice for a US President over a non-Christian.
Indeed, Carter was probably the most Godly we’ve had in modern times and we nearly choked on the meekness and humility.
In considerable contrast, Trump brags like a Beowulfian Dane. And the best available by the United Interests that Include Jews, Christians, and Other of America which is better for each of those groups than any nation has ever been with the possible exception of Israel.
When it comes to the Overton Window, ‘othering’ and gradual cultural change, ‘what-aboutism’ is neither childish nor intellectually lazy.
Now, what about Zanzibar? :P
What have the Romans done for us!?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvPbj9NX0zc
I haven’t read the whole thing, so forgive me when I say: “No, we weren’t.”
No. We are both FANs. Former Almost NeverTrumpers
I’m sorry to come at you again, but the Christians at CT are anything but influential. The circulation of the magazine is estimated to be 130,000. I think they used to be somewhat influential. But I hadn’t heard of them for years prior to their silly editorial. The magazine is one of those that sits along side People and Reader’s Digest, Large Print Edition, at the dentist office.
Well, at first I’d written “all a’dither.”
Would that have been better?
No. Because (and don’t think I’m hammerin’ on ya, because I’m not) I don’t think the article made much of a splash. A few liberals sent it to their Christian friends to say “See?!” and we all say “Yeah, whatever.”
I saw no signs of rattling or even being a’dither. Maybe slightly irritated. I suppose the progressive Christians were angry that it didn’t move the needle. But I haven’t even seen signs of that.
Hmm. Lost him right outa the gate.
This is why the reliance so many “conservatives” have on the argument that good government requires a belief in god, preferably their christian god,” is so unwise.
It’s much better to have secular arguments for what makes good policy and why individual rights are to be honored than to rely on a theological basis for those rights. It’s too easy to use a religion in any way at all, even to say bad things about Trump, the best president we’ve had since Calvin Coolidge and George Washington. If religion can be used to denounce him, then religion is meaningless.
No, rather: “The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.” If liberals at Christianity Today misuse the Bible to try to propagandize us for partisan political purposes that only reflects on their character.
For he who is not against us is for us.
Mark 9:40 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/mrk.9.40.NASB
Trump is not against us. The Demoncrats are.
Well I prefer “all a’dither” but mostly because it’s a delightful phrase.
Right, and President Trump is responsible for Iran shooting down a Ukrainian airplane. This is such a giant stretch that you’re in real danger of pulling a hamstring
The OP is responding to a political salvo from a Christian Magazine not the other way around.
Who in the world would take the OP as a signal that they’re not welcome in her church? She’s not saying that, for one, and she’s the one responding to articles bringing politics into her faith anyway. It isn’t new either, all this tut tutting over Evangelicals or any Christian supporting President Trump comes from a small but loud political tribe that probably would object to being identified as a tribe because anti tribalism is part of their current zeitgeist.
Fake news!
Who is treating Presidemt Trump that way? Who is claiming anything about “America’s true Christianity”?!?
More over stretching. You’re actually arguing that some people think that being a Trump voter is a key component of their Christian identity? You must really be tied to your narrative.
I might agree if you changed the order a bit. Being a Christian is a key component of my voting for President Trump. Then again, it’s been a key component of me being a Republican more generally for a much longer time. Why? Because the left is against the liberal order, and matters of religios freedom are definitely under that umbrella.
As far as the data suggesting that political division increasingly drives religious affiliations that really isn’t shocking considering how much the political has come after the religious and considering how much the religious has been coopted by the political and considering how basic tenets of religious morality are increasingly political in the wider culture.