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
I’ve met more than a few people who have told me that voting for Trump is a Christian duty. “If you are a Christian, you have to vote for Trump!”
This is, of course, nonsense.
The Democrats have declared open warfare on my faith, my family, my art, my literature, my music, in fact, my entire culture, even my science. The Republicans including Trump have not. Yet, I am expected to ignore all of this and support a non-Trump because he (she understood) has neatly creased slacks, is stylishly coiffed, well-spoken and oh so polite and dignified. Can I just say———–Take a hike knuckleheads.
That’s more understandable. Voting for Trump as key to Christian identity? Not so much.
As for those arguing it’s a duty, whichever few actually argue that, I get it I think but I also think it’s nonsense to the extent people mean it literally. Christianity is a personal call from God to me (and you and you and you) to live right, to serve, to worship. I do understand, though, that politics and culture being what they are that it’s really blaringly obvious which team is anti-christian and which team is at least neutral and at best supportive of Christianity and liberty more generally. It’s been that way – that obvious – for a long time now.
I’m not afraid of that term or the descriptors you apply to it. Sometimes “whatabout” is irrelevant, and other times it’s central. Like anything else it all depends on correct application.
In the current environment (and for decades really), there is one set of rules for conservatives and another set – or no rules – for others. Whataboutism is the first step to pushing back on that, the first step to pointing out the inequity. It’s also the first step to freeing ourselves from living by some imagined political/civil code that isn’t demanded of us by God, reason, or law.
As far as rights go, there is no other basis aside from theological. We’re endowed by our creator, and because of that our endowment is inalienable by mere man. Without God anything is permissible.
As far as policy, I agree that theology makes a poor basis for tax rates, spending levels, or foreign policy. However, these are all informed by morality and values and those in turn are shaped by theology. It’s an indirect connection. For me I never argue theology when it comes to public policy. SSM included.
I’m glad you are not afraid, but you misinterpreted my comment.
I wasn’t trying to instill fear in anyone.
In the sense that two wrongs don’t make a right, I accept your characterization of “what-aboutism.” In the sense that one’s opponents’ inconsistencies should always be exposed, I reject it.
When I say I’m not afraid, I don’t mean that this is a matter of literal fear.
So what are you saying? That whataboutism is a childish reflex employed by unthinking submissives. I can understand that you might make distinctions whereby the good kind goes by some name other than whataboutism – that whataboutism is only ever the bad kind. Except I don’t think that’s correct. So I suppose I disagree with your assessment, and the marginalization won’t scare me off of employing whataboutism when it’s relevant.
I think that we should consider the fundamental argument raised in the CT article. I think that it is deeply un-Christian.
What exactly is the rule? That we can only elect moral paragons? Well, there was only one. I’d very much like to vote for Him, but He’s not on the ballot, and won’t be on the ballot until the time of His choosing. At which time, He will have the only vote.
Perhaps a good response would be a Twitter campaign. #ImpeachKingDavid!
David is held up as close to a moral paragon in the Old Testament, but there was that whole mess with Bathsheba and Uriah. If you know the story, you know that it was vastly worse than anything President Trump is alleged to have done.
I had a subscription for a while back in the early 80s, even though they didn’t quite grok Lutherans.
I can’t think of the article author’s name now, but he had been a young Lutheran pastor, and the cover artist pictured him walking on a city street, bible prominently in hand. No, no, no, I told them (though they were too far away to listen). That’s the way a Baptist pastor might go out, but not a Lutheran. Lutherans may say “Sola Scriptura,” but that doesn’t mean they go flashing their Bibles in public like Bill Clinton later did when he was telling us that his crime bill was the will of God. Despite CT not being familiar with Lutherans, I did read some of the articles. Philip Yancey is a name I remember. Later, when the internet came, I occasionally looked at a CT article when somebody linked to it, but it has been many years since I’ve even done that.
(In 2007 my siblings and I got together for a 60th wedding anniversary celebration for my parents to take place at their church, after the Sunday morning worship service. My youngest brother (not a Lutheran) headed out the door, bible in hand, like the CT cover artist had depicted that young Lutheran pastor. I teased him, saying it didn’t look very Lutheran. He quickly offered to let me look at his bible so I could see what one was like.)
It’s worth reading the various responses to that piece when CT published it. They got lots and lots of pushback. And probably lost a lot of readers, too, so I hope it was worth it for Galli to write that piece as he headed out the door, leaving the rest of the magazine’s staff to pick up the pieces from the bomb he set off.
Who does, really? All the trappings of a Catholic…and yet not. 😊