It's a sign of the desperation of NeverTrumpistan to somehow get clear of The Worst Human Being Who Has Ever Lived Or Ever Will Live Until The Antichrist Comes If He Hasn't Come Already If You Know What I Mean And I Think You Do that so many people have so frantically grabbed on to this Christianity Today (founded by Billy Graham, we are hurriedly and insistently informed) editorial by CT editor-in-chief Mark Galli that Trump needs to be removed from the presidential office.
Theologically, however, this editorial will have to go a good distance to even aspire to be weak tea; at best, this is lukewarm water. Mark does admit that "impeachment" in this case is politically motivated.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But it's not that the Democrats don't have a point.
Theologically, however, this editorial will have to go a good distance to even aspire to be weak tea; at best, this is lukewarm water. Mark does admit that "impeachment" in this case is politically motivated.
Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.
But it's not that the Democrats don't have a point.
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
No, Mark, the "facts" are not "unambiguous" at all. Did you even read the transcript? Can you point to a single quote where President Trump did what you claim he did? Because if you can't, it would seem to me that your statement falls under the "false witness" strictures of the Bible. Which means that your problem's not with me, big dog. It's with a much Bigger Dog.
Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.
Mark? What part of Psalm 14 is tripping you up? What part of Romans 3:23 are you having problems with? Because you just described EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS EVER OCCUPIED THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON DOWN TO THE PRESENT DAY. And every single other person who has ever lived throughout all eternity, for that matter.
To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. 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. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?
How seriously do they take us now, Mark? How much influence have we had in rolling back atrocities like abortion?
Quite a bit, as it turns out. Mitch McConnell has gotten a couple of boatloads of federal judges confirmed while Trump got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and will get Amy Coney Barrett there as soon as Ruth Ginsberg kicks off.
So take another run at it, Mark.
10 comments:
Trump used the Force to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden. No, there's no evidence, but then, there wouldn't be, would there? That's the diabolical genius of the man!
Your repeated comment, Chris, is of value here: We do not elect a Chief Pastor. We elect a Chief Executive Officer. In an election where my choices were two obviously morally flawed individuals, I voted for the one who promised policies more in line with my beliefs, including the Supreme Court list, and against the one with bad policy proposals and the demonstrated long-time record of corruption in public office.
I factored Trump's past sexual misbehavior into my thinking and voted for him anyhow, because I thought he'd be better for the country. And he has been.
There is only one Donald Trump. Four more years, 2021-2025, and he's out. We can hope that conservative leaders of less checkered personal moral behavior will arise for the 2024 election -- but we should also hope that these leaders will have learned the lesson that rolling over and playing nice with leftists doesn't work.
Katherine,
I am biased as a Texan. I think Ted Cruz should come after Donald Trump even though Cruz has been in the Senate. The Ted, as he is fondly called, has shown some spine in the past. His ability to take on hecklers during the 2016 primary season impressed me. We will have to see if Ted is part of the Swamp or someone there to drain it as the next 4 years go by.
I am not sure about Mike Pence. However as understudy to Donald Trump, he may make an excellent choice to take the helm. It just always seems that a VP going on to the Presidency has not worked well.
BillB, this non-Texan supported Cruz and would be happy to see him as president. For the past three years, having lost the nomination, he has put aside the mutual name-calling that occurred and has been effective at supporting Trump's initiatives and effective at debunking the leftist nonsense. He impresses in interviews time and again. I think he's likely to run in 2024.
Ditto WRT Ted. Was my 2d choice after Bobby in '16, but I knew Bobby had no real chance so Ted was really my 1st. He's off the charts smart too, seems brave and determined, and his "Machine Gun Bacon" ad was hilarious. Some said the ad proved he didn't really know guns (it wasn't a machine gun) but I think he does and just said what would best trigger (haha) leftoids. Anyway, he's got the bandwidth and certainly seems to have the backbone. Irrelevant, but he's also really kind of hot, LOL, and that would make them crazy-er too.
1. Religious publications should be quite chary about addressing topical questions which do not touch on the capacity of religious institutions to fulfill their missions and which do not concern the moral choices of persons in real time, and which do not concern the regulatory function of the state to suppress vice and immorality within the bounds of prudence. Fr. Neuhaus once said, "If it is not necessary for the Church to speak, it is necessary for the Church not to speak". The boundaries are fuzzier for lay apostolates and First Things and Crisis occasionally breached them, but the boundaries are there. I think certain figures have run afoul of them too often (the Falwells among them).
2. I think one thing is clear here: an older generation of evangelical leadership has given way to people of lesser calibre. Aside from the intellectual heft and forensic skills, their willingness and capacity to contend with the larger culture has declined.
3. Also of note is that influential within foundationally evangelical institutions is a clerisy that has no use for the natural constituency of these institutions or for their heritage. S.M. Hutchens has been saying for some time that Wheaton College, to take one example, was doomed.
4. These characters don't have a great deal of integrity. John Fea, to take one example, is fond of referring to 'court evangelicals', a term he never applies to Tony Campolo or Jim Wallis. Note, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell built congregations and schools, something far beyond any accomplishments registered by Campolo and Wallis. Their connections to Republican pols are a much smaller share of the whole picture than the connections Campolo and Wallis maintain to Democratic pols.
5. The editorial is just a recycling of Democratic talking points. It's entirely derivative, but that's congruent with the usual poses of purveyors of liberal religiosity (see Commonweal for examples). The only thing they add is a dollop of churchian prissiness.
I'll third that support for Ted Cruz. I think he understands the name-calling was just part of the debate and primary agenda. He and Trump seemed to get on quite well almost immediately after Trump won the nomination. Cruz is a fighter, and smart too.
Greetings from the blog "The American Catholic"! We were pointed to your blog and excellent comments on the editorial in Christianity Today. I am like many, I suppose, in that I found Trump's bombastic rhetoric and personal history a bit much at first but I was persuaded to vote for him by his pro-life pledges and Clinton's clear support of abortion. He's kept those promises. And I now understand him as a tough street fighter who understands politics is a "contact sport" and that many members of Congress in both parties are "Swamp Creatures"! He gets my vote again in 2020. And, I, like many others, am also wondering about 2024. But God is in charge, not us (thankfully); but, we do have our roles to play to fulfill our purpose. Now is our moment to influence those we can...
Greetings, Anonymous from *The American Catholic" 8) Same pathway for me, WRT Gimli (my affectionate nickname for President Trump). He's a product of his background and our times but his heart is in the right place and he's brave and tough and doing pretty much what he said he would do, and much more than anyone since The Gipper. I hope Boris will prove his Thatcher. But wish Benedict were still Pope, to complete the latter-day trio....Christmas blessings to you!!
Forgot to give my name in that comment. It's Sybil.
Post a Comment