There Is No Remaining Christian Case for Trump

Trump discipled the church more than the church discipled Trump.

By
1089

I want to start with this newsletter with a few brief excerpts of speeches by important and powerful American Christians. Here’s the first, from Senator Ted Cruz, telling a conference of conservative youth his approach to preferred pronouns:

Then here’s Senator Josh Hawley, the man who fist-pumped the January 6 mob, only to run away when they breached the Capitol:

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
1089
By
Comments (1089)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Collin

    Would American politics be less gross and insane, if more people viewed their politics as purely transactional like hiring plumber is?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Realwoodies

    Politics is not Christianity, David. You should think about it more like a sport. In boxing, there are rules, but your goal is to beat your opponent until he cannot respond. Barbaric? Maybe, but no one questions how to play the game. Politics is playing to the crowd. It’s dirty. It’s not for clean Christians.

    Collapse
  3. Emily

    Was with you until the final paragraph. I find you so thoughtful and nuanced in your analysis of Republicans and conservative Christians, but your complete lack of acknowledgment of Christians like me who hold more liberal views and vote for Democrats, while also being able to criticize and call out the extremes in our own party, continually frustrates me. You say there’s no binary choice re: Trump. And then perpetuate the idea that there will always be a binary choice between Republicans and Democrats. So what then when Trump does become the 2024 Republican nominee?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Bill McDavitt

    It's pieces like this that remind me why I'm so sympathetic to Jonah being in the Remnant. https://nypost.com/2022/07/26/marjorie-taylor-greene-rachel-maddow-part-of-godless-lying-left/
    It's really difficult for me to be on Team Maddow or Team Taylor Greene.

    Collapse
  5. David Luttrull

    First off, let me say that I think your article was very helpful. I think it definitely makes a strong case why there can be no remaining support in the evangelical world for Donald Trump. The only point of pushback that I can see some giving is that the very real society-crumbling ideologies of the left (Critical Theory, Gender Theory, Radical Socialism, anti-religious sentiment, etc...) are still more dangerous than the more nebulous "eroding democracy" and "hero worship." I don't agree with them, but I can see some people making that argument. In other words, they would argue, "You're mad at Cruz for saying his pronouns are 'Kiss My ...', but the alternative is Libs of TikTok. Sure, it's maybe not "acceptable" for Ted Cruz to talk like that, but I think it's far worse that local public schools are putting litter boxes in the locker rooms to accommodate furries." I don't agree with that argument, but I can see how people could convince themselves of the idea.

    I also listened to the interview between yourself and Paul Miller. Here's the one pushback I would give. You and he decried the lack of faithful evangelicals in public institutions. At the same time, you indicated that it was problematic the way that public school teachers taught (admittedly lacking) Christian beliefs in the classroom. To me, you either have one or the other. When teachers were muzzled from talking about their faith in the classroom, many devout Christians believed that to be untenable for them as educators. They couldn't separate their beliefs about history, science, culture, morality, etc... from their faith. As such, they started institutions where their faith was not only allowed, but a key part of the education. As I look at the biblical mandate for Christian parents and the biblical patterns of education, I think this was the right call. I now teach at a Christian school. I can't imagine teaching government and economics without any of my religious beliefs. The concepts are inherently intertwined. Does this lead to further polarization in society? Perhaps. But, for me as a Christian, polarization as a society is less concerning than a faithful Christian foundation.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      You can't imagine teaching government and economics without religious beliefs? And what would you say to someone who thinks the country should definitely NOT have a "faithful Christian foundation" precisely because it was founded as a place for religious freedom for ALL? I guess we should all just be quiet and let you Christians indoctrinate our children, force us to live by your dogma (which can't even be agreed upon by Christians, much less other religions or no religions), and count us lucky you don't hang us as witches anymore?
      Teachers are supposed to educate all children not just Christian children: the three 'Rs' not indoctrinate or teach religion. That's what churches and bible studies and yes, Christians schools are for.....
      Your whole arrogance of "my way is the best way so I'm going to demonize other ideas (probably that you don't even understand) and vote for people like Trump that will try to get rid of our democracy altogether" - no wonder there's "anti-religious sentiment"

      Collapse
      1. David Luttrull

        Just FYI, I didn't vote for Trump. I made quite public statements as to why I thought no Christian of good conscience could vote for Trump.

        Maybe read back through some of my previous comments in this thread. But, just to answer a few of your accusations directly: 1) A "faithful Christian foundation" in my view inherently presupposes "religious freedom for all." Every person should be free to follow her or his personal religious beliefs without coercion from the state. Teaching what you believe is not the same thing as coercion. In fact, even in my role as a teacher at a Christian school, my philosophy is that all students are free to disagree with me. On essays, they don't have to answer according to what I would say, but rather what they believe to be true (if it's an opinion essay). 2) All children are indoctrinated by schools. I specifically addressed this in one of my previous comments, but there is no such thing as "neutral" education. Education is not worldview neutral. Without getting too deep into the weeds on this one, just think about how a tribal leader in Afghanistan would view our "neutral" public school system. He would scream, "Indoctrination!" I would be a million times more philosophically aligned with our public school system than the tribal leader. But, my point is that what we often think of as "neutral" in the public school system is not really neutral at all.

        I intentionally do my best when teaching students not to "demonize other ideas" as there's usually a reason why people believe that they do – including those "nasty" Trump supporters. I'm not sure where you got "my way is the best way" from my comments. But, regardless, I will not deny that I do have beliefs that I believe to be true. As do you. As do we all! I guess I'm just willing to admit it.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      "polarization as a society is less concerning than a faithful Christian foundation."

      But what if the polarisation and the current political climate is the result of the lack of a faithful Christian *testimony and presence* in secular society? This is all that any Christian has been called to for two thousand years, any where in the world, because *a Christian foundation in society is NOT assumed* in Christ's teaching or anywhere in the Bible.

      One can have a faithful Christian testimony and presence while executing their secular jobs within societal constraints, whether teaching or serving in some other capacity.

      Instead, the Christian right is communicating that, once they have power, the *public school system* will look like the Christian school movement (ie, in the minds of many, more like Afghanistan than America).

      Collapse
      1. David Luttrull

        Would you say that the presence of polarization in the early Christian church was a sign of a lack of faithful Christian testimony? Was the hegemony of the Catholic church throughout the Middles Ages a sign of faithful Christian testimony and presence in that day? I would argue no on both accounts.

        I would absolutely agree with you that a faithful Christian can work at the majority of jobs today without constraint. Christians should have a faithful testimony and presence in those positions. But, if a job requires me to set aside my Christian identity and beliefs in order to participate, I personally would be unable to hold that job - and I know many Christians who feel the same way.

        Finally, you are making the modern assumption that we can all agree on a set of "secular principles" and set aside our personal beliefs about the rest. So, Christians can teach at a public school by sticking to the secular principles and letting their faith be in the background. I think this *might* have been possible at one point when the vast majority of Americans held to a Judeo-Christian worldview (even if they didn't do a good job of living it out as a society). The principles that "we can all agree on" were essentially foundations of that Judeo-Christian worldview.

        I will say that I can see how it would be somewhat easier for a evangelical professor to be able to teach at a public university as the constraints on teaching on not nearly so strict at a higher education level. But, at a JH/HS level?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          We are not talking about polarisation of worldviews between what the world believes and what the Christian believes (that is actually the only "Culture War" that counts, not the supposed proxy one between Democrats and Republicans); nor are we talking about polarisation within the Church (interesting that Fundamentalists in the US who wouldn't cross the street for a charismatic prosperity-gospel preacher six years ago are now swapping conspiracy theories).

          Rather, we are talking about political polarisation in a diverse democratic society where freedom of religion is assumed by all members. Polarisation in which the Christians are not the peace-makers or salt-and-light, exercising the Fruits of the Spirit and Discernment, but the leading fomenters of polarisation.

          If you listened to the French-Miller podcasts, it's not at all about leaving your faith at the door. It's about having a Biblical, eternal perspective of the Kingdom of God, instead of an earthly perspective of the Kingdom of God. When it comes right down to it, large parts of the US Christian right are agitating for an earthly Kingdom.

          It is interesting that the right seems to be salivating over the possibility of establishing the kind of religious hegemony that you mention the Catholic Church held over societies in the Middle Ages.

          "So, Christians can teach at a public school by sticking to the secular principles and letting their faith be in the background. I think this *might* have been possible at one point when the vast majority of Americans held to a Judeo-Christian worldview (even if they didn't do a good job of living it out as a society)."

          Christians can and do teach in public schools throughout the world, including in China and North Korea. Is it their "Christian duty" to foment a regime change? Are they failing in their Christian duty if they share Christ in "small ways" as well as they are able, and live as faithfully as they can, as "good citizens"?

          In fact, going out as secular teachers is a key way, sometimes the only way, that Christians can engage in missional activity these days. That wouldn't be possible if they always "bucked the system".

          Collapse
          1. David Luttrull

            Maybe we're talking past each other here. I unequivocally agree with you that large swaths of the "Christian right" have false understanding of America as the New Jerusalem or an earthly kingdom. I further agree and despise the concept of establishing a Christian hegemony.

            My pushback on the French-Miller podcast was a narrow one. Namely, one of the reasons why many evangelical Christians have taught at alternative "Christian" institutions (private Christian K-12 schools, Christian universities, etc...) is because they found that they simply couldn't separate their faith from their teaching in terms of science, history, morality, etc... I didn't think it was fair to, on the one side condemn Christian teachers bringing their Christianity into the classroom while on the other side complaining that there weren't very many Christians in academia. I have a Christian neighbor who teaches at a local public school. She teaches Kindergarten and is planning on retiring early because she doesn't feel like she can continue to teach at the school and follow her beliefs at the same time.

            While there may be some Christian teachers in China and North Korea, I would imagine they're virtually non-existent. How could a Christian teach emperor-worship and follow Christ at the same time? Have you read the book of Daniel?

            Note: It's not their Christian duty to foment a regime change. But, it may be their Christian duty to step down from their position if they're required to teach students in a biblically inappropriate way. They would continue to do as you suggest: "share Christ in 'small ways' as well as they are able, and live as faithfully as they can, as 'good citizens.'" They would instead do it as neighbors, friends, and co-workers, not as a teacher.

            Again, my point in this is a rather narrow one. I think we would agree on the broader strokes of this debate.

            Collapse
  6. Jim Hahn

    “There Is No Remaining Christian Case for Trump”…other than is strong stance on Pro-Life issues.

    But, it seems like the Establishment Republicans don’t care about that issue.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Perhaps Establishment Republicans care about the issue but care more about the whole "small government" more than "forcing women to remain pregnant by the government?" Or even, they care about anti-abortion views, but not at the expense of democracy altogether.

      Collapse
      1. Jim Hahn

        Or maybe, they just care about their own power.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    W James Anderson

    Ted, Josh and Matt Christians?... hardly.

    Collapse
  8. Olga Gieszczykiewicz

    You are right, they are not representative of Jesus. It's a shame they try to hold up the Bible figurativly and or literally and think it fools someone.

    Collapse
  9. Mathew A

    I don't like Trump, I wish he had been successfully impeached. I also don't like how Cruz and Hawley have prostrated themselves to be on the Trump train.

    But I think your examples are pretty weak. "Kiss my ass" is pretty tame. And certainly doesn't demonstrate some big character flaw (not like trying to steal an election).

    And your weak examples detract from a piece that I otherwise agree with. Trump has been bad for the Republican party, and bad for Christianity.

    Collapse
  10. Bob D

    Good piece. I’ve never understood the loyalty some have for Trump.

    His “fighting” was largely performative and ineffectual. In fact, I’d suggest that Trump’s performative nonsense on issues like gender, race, and climate have made it harder to stake out reasonable conservative defenses on these issues. It’s hard to identify a single accomplishment of his administration that wouldn’t have been accomplished by any other Republican administration. And they probably would have accomplished it without causing the GOP to lose control of the House and Senate.

    As for the the more nationalist-populist direction of Trump’s politics, I give little credit to Trump. We see the same thing with the Democrats with the popularity of Bernie. That’s simply a reflection of where national sentiments are headed. Trump echoed what you could hear from a million barstools all across America. Trump was unique in 2016 in that he heard those sentiments and echoed them, while his opponents paid attention to DC-based consultants. But nearly every prospective 2024 candidate for the GOP nomination is taking that tack. There will be far better alternatives to Trump in 2024 who can pursue many of the same policies without the baggage.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kizedek

      Re: "where national sentiments are headed":
      It sounds like you think that "far better alternatives to Trump in 2024 who can pursue many of the same policies without the baggage" is a self-evidently good thing?

      I think the concern of many of David's pieces, is that "the more nationalist-populist direction of Trump’s politics" is being fuelled by Christians who think that all Republican policies, as a "platform", is a correct and biblically mandated direction that we should pursue at all costs, like it's a holy mission that is beyond doubt and not to be questioned. That just isn't the case. It's definitely a case of "be careful what you wish for." There is nothing that theologically necessitates many of these positions; and US Christians need to come to terms with this.

      Perhaps "the other direction", a little more liberal one, deserves a little more credit than it gets from US Christians, as it does get from Christians around the world. For a start, that direction is not intrinsically evil and demonic; so Christians should stop with that already. And despite the right's fear-mongering that it's just about totalitarian control of the individual, social democracies actually want the state to function properly and police itself.

      A lot more of govt oversight in Europe (particularly northern Europe) is about the govt policing itself (and corporations) on behalf of its citizens than US Christians might think. And Christians in Britain (who have a long tradition of championing or at least being sympathetic to progressive reform) are rightly criticising the conservative Tory govt for the chaos it is creating as it doggedly pursues a nationalistic agenda out of greed and disregard for its citizens.




      Collapse
      1. Bob D

        I didn’t mean anything so specific by my comment. By 2016, there was a growing sense that globalization and the things that go with it (free movement, declining manufacturing, etc.) were inflicting pain on a lot of people in middle America. The establishment of both major parties were largely oblivious to this pain. So, we ended up with Bernie and Trump.

        By my observation, the hardcore Trump supporters are more attracted to his style than to his substance. It’s the embrace of that style that’s particularly problematic.

        By virtue of education and profession, I’m a member of the technocratic elite. But I believe that our class has become increasingly self-serving, and that our disproportionate influence over government policy is a bad thing. Trump echoed the concerns of the middle 60% of Americans, and, in his clumsy way, showed the hypocrisy of the technocratic ruling class. I believe that we’re amidst a period of political realignment and that the coalitions that make up both parties will alter drastically. Trump is merely a symptom of that trend. He is not essential to it in any way. So, people are better off letting the trend play out and waiting for better representatives of that shift to emerge.

        I would agree that Scripture has very little specific to say about the merits of political decisions. Politics is about pragmatic trade-offs. I live in an area where few people go to church and less than 5% of the population is evangelical. People mostly keep their religion to themselves. So, I can’t comment on those who feel a certain religious fervor about Trump. I suspect that such people are mostly in other parts of the country.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kizedek

          Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

          My feeling (as a web developer with international clients, and who enjoys pulling in collaborating colleagues from India and seeing the empowerment of families and communities in all parts of the third world) is that "globalisation" is yet another Middle America boogeyman that has been demonised by the right.

          Yes, declining manufacturing is sad for any community or region. But isn't that, and other issues, largely the inevitable result of a shift to consumerism and convenience, and people preferring careers in the service industries? It seems to be what happens in post-industrialized societies. As David French has said, the complaints from the US right about a whole host of perceived grievances (personal rights, freedoms, and probably a lot of the pain you reference) are largely coming from the most affluent, most represented, most privileged, most outspoken, most educated, most comfortable people the world has ever seen, anywhere at any time in history!

          In Western Europe, we despise big box stores like Walmart with their relentless drive to deliver lower prices at the expense of their suppliers and their employees. If there's govt regulation of big box chains in Europe, it's because citizens want that regulation. The "high-street" (often pedestrianised) culture is very much alive, for example. People here are willing to have slightly higher prices for different things to ensure the value-chain is more equitable all along the chain, particularly for the actual producers, that it doesn't exploit them, and is thus more sustainable in the long run (And yet, having just visited the US two months ago for the first time in 10 years, I found the price of groceries in the US to be double the price here, in general).

          Thus, there is Globalisation that isn't merely the dominance of a couple of mega multi-nationals (which, to be fair, may be what many in Middle America think Globalisation is all about; either that, or Americans were told that all their multi-nationals would dominate the world and are disappointed that they haven't, so now they're taking their ball home with them in a huff).

          I find US politics extremely short-sighted. Of course Middle America is going to feel a pinch and pain. For a start, all infrastructure, education, health, etc. is generations behind much of the world. There has been no consistent public investment in the US infrastructure and institutions for a century (or since they were set up following WWII or whatever), because it is anathema to the conservative right.

          Of course Democratic ideals for health and education and public transportation and other infrastructure don't work! Four years out of every 8 or 12 is nothing! These are 40-year projects, not 4-year projects! But, blame it on globalisation.

          Meanwhile, my pain is less because my kids are going to college for 1 or 2K tuition per year, public transportation for students is free, every adult's health care is fully covered for 120 per month independent of employment, we can actually take time off work to enjoy what we have (albeit, it's not an RV, boat, and cabin at the lake like many in Middle America have), etc.

          Middle America has to decide it wants substance and change, not style and quick fixes that are doomed to fail.

          Collapse
          1. Bob D

            It’s not just the right. Most supporters of Bernie share many of these same sentiments and concerns. I also expect that America will step back from its role of providing a global security guarantee. There’s just no public appetite for it. Aside from elite virtue-signaling, there is complete ambivalence over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. I’m not offering any judgment as to the merits of that. It’s just a fact.

            My broader point is that Trump came to power because the GOP establishment was too beholden to K Street lobbyists and too out of touch with its voter base. Trump, despite his shortcomings, recognized that and took advantage of it. But that situation was unique to the time not to Trump the man. Trump proved that the emperor had no clothes, but was incapable of building a governing coalition to move the country forward. Just as Goldwater paved the way for Reagan, Trump will have paved the way for someone else.

            Collapse
Load More
Worth Your Time

Civil Liberties Don’t Impede the Common Good—They Advance It

DeSantis and Haley on Collision Course

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya

Is It Too Late for Two States?

Avatar photo

About David French

David French is a columnist for the New York Times. He’s a former senior editor of The Dispatch. He’s the author most recently of Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation.
More from David French