It Was a Bit off-Base. Sadly, It Was Also Spot On!
Yesterday's Christianity Today (CT) editorial by Mark Galli, which called for the removal of President Trump, whipped up instant and intense response from many in the evangelical community. Simply, the rebuke charges that CT was completely off base. Yet, one has to wonder, if the defensive posture evident in a notable number of those rebukes suggests the piece hit something deeper, and hit it spot on.
IF IT IS OFF BASE ...
It is primarily because CT is unable to run from the light it used to expose conservative evangelical partisanship. And make no mistake, that is what this piece was really about. That light, however, when turned back upon the source, reveals a similar, albeit opposite, slant.
The op/ed promotes calling a spade a spade, so let's call CT out for merely trying to flip the partisan coin.
Reading between the lines of CT’s condemnation of the President, the blatant indictment of the evangelical right was hard to miss. Yet, simultaneously, the piece caught CT smuggling across the backhanded suggestion that an evangelical left would be preferable. Backhanded, I say, because the editors would argue (probably) that not supporting the President does not imply support for the left.
While that is a fair argument indeed, its objectivity was crippled by the employment of the fact-less presuppositions CT employed to make their case to begin with.
Consider this quote: "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 [sic] political opponents."
Objectively, the reality of the instance in question is, in fact, quite ambiguous. The presumption otherwise is what the entire quid pro quo drama was over to begin with. That CT didn't reflect on that, overlooks a rather obviously biased interpretation of their aforementioned "facts." If they did anticipate as much, and still forged ahead, then we know all we need to about the journalistic integrity of this publication, even if it is marked as an "editorial."
In sum, the op/ed promotes calling a spade a spade, so let's call CT out for merely trying to flip the partisan coin.
ON THE OTHER HAND ...
The editorial was spot on. There's no avoiding how the underlying message should be taken to heart. It brought to the fore the matter that “evangelicalism” has not navigated this Presidency well at all. Strip away the piece’s partisan ethos, and in the same spirit, set aside your own partisan leanings, to consider (as objectively as possible) the question it ultimately jabs at.
While the piece seemed to ask (both rhetorically and pejoratively), “how can a Christian support this President?” The better question is ... “how should a Christian support this President?”
I get that since evangelicals are typically conservative, the logical end is that they would support conservative political and governmental actions and appointees. Such as that is the case, have at it. Get on board with President Trump’s policies, positions, appointees, etc., if you’re of the persuasion they are the best options.
To favor his politics and/or positions is one thing. To boast of and (even more troublingly) mimic his antagonistic, debasing, and sophomoric ways is another.
I also get how many conservative political positions stem from the common evangelical understanding of the biblical ethic, and thus are assumed to be the position most consistent with the Faith. Whether or not that is actually the case is something that can be defended by Christians aligned either to the right or to the left—and those debates are all fair game.
However, and unfortunately, there are things demonstrated by President Trump that are patently indefensible by the biblical ethic and/or portrait of God revealed in Christ. Too often, it is the tendency of right-aligned evangelicals to applaud the President in these un-Christ-like moments that makes the indictment against “evangelicalism” spot on.
(And by “evangelicalism,” I mean the segment of evangelical society that mistakes its political alignments for the moral high ground and locates its identity in its sense of theocracy over the core precepts of its pure theology. I view "evangelicalism" more as a consistent voting block, than I do as faithful theological expression.)
In other words, and on behalf of myriad other examples, when the President debases a teenager (Greta Thunberg) and the Christians of “evangelicalism” follow it up by sharing memes similarly mocking the girl, there is a serious collision of a genuine Christian ethic with that of “evangelicalism.”
To favor his politics and/or positions is one thing. To celebrate and (even more troublingly) mimic his antagonistic, debasing, and sophomoric ways is another.
So too, is emulating the President's approach to political rivals questionable when it comes to how Christians should go about addressing people of other perspectives—which, as it seems, many evangelicals feel is OK, as long as the rudeness and belittling is in the context of politics.
The reality, nevertheless, is that nowhere is such behavior found to be defensible by any principle within the pages of Scripture. And this is especially notable considering “being biblical” is something evangelicalism claims to be all about.
Insofar as that is the case, it seems that evangelicals need to find the appropriate balance when it comes to how they should support this President. Because, given the way many demonstrate that support, the duplicity intoned in the question “how can a Christian support this President?” is, in many respects, completely warranted.
J.M. Zabick (Th.M. - Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University): Founder, contributor, and general editor at FNR. Currently a doctoral student of historical theology/Christian history, he is uniquely interested in the connection between theology and philosophy across the timeline of Western Thought (especially in the Modern to post-Christian era) and in the development of Christian doctrine. He is a constant observer and occasional critic of the American Church, who lives with his unmatchable wife and talented son in the Midwest region.
Comments