The "marriage" of evangelicalism and Donald Trump
For me, among the mysteries of the modern political moment is how the Evangelical community within the Body of Christ sustains tolerance of - often outright support for - Donald Trump, an incompetent, narcissistic, racist, philandering liar of a magnitude the U.S. has never before experienced, at least on the national stage. Today I found an interview with Rob Schenck, in the 90's a prominent and politically partisan leader in the Evangelical movement, who in in a new book describes the great change he has experienced in his politics and his views of the interplay between Evangelicalism and conservative politics. Since I am not part of the Evangelical community, I feel ill-equipped to comment on his observations. Whatever your self-identification in the Body of Christ, I hope you'll share you reflections on THIS INTERVIEW.
Comments
-
You should read your Bible (which you say you don’t believe) and you would know that Trump is a sort of Cyrus—if you have ever heard of him. Get that and you will get it all.
BTW Trumps approval rating is presently the same as Obama and Reagan at this point in Pressidency and that in the face of unprecedented media resistance, liberal hate and fake news. Amazing success. God can do anything He wants and tiny little noisy people don’t really amount to much in politics. -
Thanks for the article. Where he mentions Dietrich Bonhoeffer "who questioned the symbiotic, and problematic, relationship that emerged between Adolf Hitler and 1930s German evangelical churches."
Calvin and Luther (think thousands of dead Anabaptists) set in motion this unholy alliance through their "dual morality" and "lesser magistrate" doctrines that remain in churches throughout America today. (You can google these terms and learn more about them if necessary.) These doctrines might help explain the religious right's Trump, Guns and NRA lust.
But consider this: even the Mennonites beat their pruning hooks back into swords to serve in Hitler's armies. http://www.ephrataministries.org/remnant-2012-11-mennonite-nazis.a5w
"How did this happen to the Mennonites?"
"When I lived in Germany 20 years ago, I was a new convert to many of these Anabaptist ideas like nonresistance and separation from worldly politics. Walking into a Mennonite church there, I noticed on the walls the war memorials of Mennonites who had fought in the war. My guide was a man in his seventies who remembered the war period well. I asked him, “How did this happen? How did the Mennonites get swept up into all of this Nazi nationalism?”"
"He somberly told me, “It came over us like a revival.”
"That was an impressive answer, and I am sure that at the end it did indeed come on them like that. But was it completely unexpected? I now think that the compromise was more insidious than the Mennonites were aware of. As the years go by and I watch the way modern conservative Mennonites respond to politics, I can somewhat understand how this could happen again. I now think that instead of being a sudden change, it rather happened because of a long time of slow compromise. James Peter Regier says it well in the conclusion of his excellent essay on this historic time period of Mennonite history:"
"It seems then, that the biggest flaw of the Mennonites was not any immediate error. Instead, it was the natural consequence of years of gradual theological adaptations and compromises to better fit within the German community. When National Socialism came, the Mennonites no longer had the capacity to resist.[18]"
The entire article is worth a read through.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
For me, among the mysteries of the modern political moment is how the Evangelical community within the Body of Christ sustains tolerance of - often outright support for - Donald Trump, an incompetent, narcissistic, racist, philandering liar of a magnitude the U.S. has never before experienced, at least on the national stage. Today I found an interview with Rob Schenck, in the 90's a prominent and politically partisan leader in the Evangelical movement, who in in a new book describes the great change he has experienced in his politics and his views of the interplay between Evangelicalism and conservative politics. Since I am not part of the Evangelical community, I feel ill-equipped to comment on his observations. Whatever your self-identification in the Body of Christ, I hope you'll share you reflections on THIS INTERVIEW.Two things:
- Your characterization of the President has no basis in reality.
- I've never heard of Rob Schenck and I don't think Mother Jones is a credible source of anything.
-
@GaoLu said:
You should read your Bible (which you say you don’t believe) and you would know that Trump is a sort of Cyrus—if you have ever heard of him. Get that and you will get it all.It's fascinating and bit concerning to me that you compare the president to a pagan, hegemonic conqueror of many lands, one who believed God had given him "all the kingdoms of the earth" (2 Chronicles 36.23), who died in control of one of the largest empires the world at that time had witnessed, whose empire the nation of Iran historically has used to support its own governing structure.
Cyrus had many positive traits, from what I read of him - bravery, military ingenuity, nascent respect for both human rights and religions not his own - none of which, in my view, is evident in President Trump (except that one about respect for religions not his own - he HAS shown respect for Christianity.... But then there's Islam, another religion not his own. Has he shown respect for Islam? Not so much.)
BTW Trumps approval rating is presently the same as Obama and Reagan at this point in Pressidency and that in the face of unprecedented media resistance, liberal hate and fake news. Amazing success.
Here you adopt the approach of most Trumpsters when it comes to the evaluation of the first 17 months of the Trump presidency: Look at results; disregard truth, character, or any other standard by which presidencies (and most human behavior) have historically been judged.
- The fact that the US economy has continued the expansion started in the Obama administration more than eight years ago justifies the silencing of moral outrage in response to Trump's pathological lying.
- The fact that Trump appointed a credentialed and predictable conservative to the Supreme Court - because Republicans in the US Senate took the extraordinary step of refusing even to meet with, let alone hold hearings for, the person President Obama nominated to fill the Scalia seat eight months before the election - excuses from judgment the president's thinly veiled racism in response to Charlottesville, or his openly racist and years-long advocacy of the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
"Unprecedented media resistance"? No. Unprecedented presidential narcissism, incompetence, mendacity, and possibly illegal conduct. To my knowledge, we've never had a president, accurate media coverage of whose words and actions generated so much alarm and controversy.
- Trump lies BASICALLY EVERY TIME HE OPENS HIS MOUTH. Do you not want media to identify presidential falsehoods?
- Scott Pruitt's conduct as EPA administrator is now the subject of more than a dozen ethics probes - an astonishing situation. Do you not want media to report the ethical and legal lapses of government officials?
"Fake news"? One of the most sadly ironic traits of Trump and his political lemmings is their reliance on the "fake news" meme. First, mainstream media coverage of the president has been amazingly accurate. The few errors to which Trumpsters point were without exception corrected and apologized for within hours by the media outlets responsible for them, while the nation still waits for the president to apologize for ANY of the 3,000+ falsehoods he had delivered during his time in office. If a couple of handfuls of media errors made AND corrected are "fake news," what are thousands of uncorrected presidential lies?
God can do anything He wants and tiny little noisy people don’t really amount to much in politics.
That said, do you have any comments about the interview to which I provided a link, the interview that was in fact the reason for my OP in this thread?
-
To me as a non American, the mystery clears up considerably when I consider Hillary Clinton's comments about supporting abortion, as well as several public appearances of Mike Pence, during which he displayed what seemed to be genuine godliness.
-
@reformed said:
1. Your characterization of the President has no basis in reality.I contend there is objective evidence to demonstrate the "basis in reality" of most of my characterizations about the president. Do you contend there is no such evidence?
- The president has NOT displayed narcissistic tendencies?!
- The president has NOT been a philanderer?
- The president's years-long advocacy of the lie that President Obama was not born in this country did NOT have racist elements?
- The president has NOT spoken more lies and other false statements than any other president in history? Evidence of a president who has spoken more of them?
I grant that "incompetent" is an editorial about which people can come to different conclusions. But there is no doubt about the "basis in fact" of my other characterizations.
- I've never heard of Rob Schenck and I don't think Mother Jones is a credible source of anything.
I accept that you've never heard of Rob Schenck. I don't accept that your lack of awareness of him changes the value of his story. A helpful review of his journey can be found HERE.
Are you contending that Mother Jones manufactured some part or all of the transcript it published of its interview with Rob Schenck? Evidence?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
1. Your characterization of the President has no basis in reality.I contend there is objective evidence to demonstrate the "basis in reality" of most of my characterizations about the president. Do you contend there is no such evidence?
- The president has NOT displayed narcissistic tendencies?!
You can say that about anyone.
- The president has NOT been a philanderer?
While in office? No. In the past? There is evidence to suggest that yes. However, I am not sure how that is relevant to the presidency.
- The president's years-long advocacy of the lie that President Obama was not born in this country did NOT have racist elements?
No
- The president has NOT spoken more lies and other false statements than any other president in history? Evidence of a president who has spoken more of them?
I don't think you can prove this point Bill.
I grant that "incompetent" is an editorial about which people can come to different conclusions. But there is no doubt about the "basis in fact" of my other characterizations.
- I've never heard of Rob Schenck and I don't think Mother Jones is a credible source of anything.
I accept that you've never heard of Rob Schenck. I don't accept that your lack of awareness of him changes the value of his story. A helpful review of his journey can be found HERE.
Are you contending that Mother Jones manufactured some part or all of the transcript it published of its interview with Rob Schenck? Evidence?
No, I am saying that you pick a random evangelical to base your argument.
-
@reformed said:
You can say that (narcissistic tendencies) about anyone.I didn't make myself clear.
The president has NOT shown narcissistic tendencies far more intensely and frequently than is common among "just about anyone," let alone previous presidents?!
- The president has NOT been a philanderer?
While in office? No. In the past? There is evidence to suggest that yes. However, I am not sure how that is relevant to the presidency.
The fact that he's had multiple extra-marital affairs makes him a philanderer. That he hasn't done so recently, only makes him self-protective.
How is is relevant to the presidency? Because presidents can be subject to blackmail or analogous schemes just as easily as can be presidential candidates. And we know what happens when presidential candidates don't want word of their sexual conduct disclosed: They have their lawyers create NDAs and make hush money payments to porn stars and Playboy models of, say, $130,000 or $150,000, to pick two amounts out of the air.
- The president's years-long advocacy of the lie that President Obama was not born in this country did NOT have racist elements?
No
You're right, reformed. The president pursued birtherism only because those investigators he said he sent to Hawaii DID find shocking details about Obama's birth. And only out of the goodness of his heart and his concern for the well-being of the republic did he not make them public.
- The president has NOT spoken more lies and other false statements than any other president in history? Evidence of a president who has spoken more of them?
I don't think you can prove this point Bill.
Even if only 1/3 of the statements flagged by the Post are indeed false or misleading, that's still more than 1,000 falsehoods in less than a year and a half. (And FAR, FAR, FAR more than 1/3 of the flagged statements are indeed false or misleading!)
No, I am saying that you pick a random evangelical to base your argument.
I don't know what "random evangelical(s)" are. From his Wikipedia profile, I think it's fair to say Schenck certainly has a history of activism in politically partisan evangelical movements, something that is not true of all or even most "random evangelicals."
Your previous contention was that Mother Jones "is (not) a credible source of anything." So I ask again: Are you contending that Mother Jones fabricated some or all of the interview transcript with Ben Schenck? If not, how was your comment about Mother Jones at all relevant to the article to which I linked?
-
Are you contending that the National Enquirer fabricated some or all...[blah blah balh] or that all the interview transcript with ....[blah blah blah]
Same kinda credibility.
The humor of that post set me to giggles.
Trump is keeping America a free country so we may each think and express as we wish. Give thanks. -
@GaoLu said:
Are you contending that the National Enquirer fabrive icated some or all...[blah blah balh] or that all the interview transcript with ....[blah blah blah]And another Trumpster Dumspter comment from you, Gao Lu, one whose intent is to discredit or diminish a media source - in this case, Mother Jones - sadly, without a shred of evidence.
Donald Trump cries "fake news!" (without ever proving his case) and his lemmings, as your post demonstrates, dispense the baseless meme in their spheres of influence. Perhaps it might be called a form of rhetorical Ponzi scheme.
During a press conference today, for example, a CNN journalist asked the president about reported rifts among G7 leaders. The president's first response was not to the question asked of him, but to the journalist's employer. When the reported said he was from CNN, the president responded "I figured. Fake News CNN. The worst. But I could tell by the question. I had no idea you were CNN. After the question, I was just curious as to who you were with. You were CNN." The president further assessed his relationship with other G7 leaders to be a "10."
The United Trumpsters Union across the country probably cheered the meme's appearance, but later in the day the president retracted his endorsement of the summit's joint communique and ordered his representatives NOT to sign the document approved by the other six leaders. In so doing Trump basically confirmed the basis of the CNN reporter's question - the "fake news!" question - as he accused the Canadian prime minister of making "false statements."
In your post, Gao Lu, you equate Mother Jones with the National Enquirer. I'm guessing you meant that as a slight to Mother Jones, but things get a but muddled when we note that the Enquirer is a publication Mr. Trump loves and trusts. Recall that's where then-candidate Trump saw a picture allegedly of Senator Ted Cruz' father with JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, a photo on which Mr Trump based his conspiracy theory that Cruz' father had helped Oswald kill Kennedy. Trump's speculation was baseless, of course - more accurately, a disgusting lie. But to Trumpsters across the country - including you, perhaps? - it was no doubt as true as his claims about the "Fake News!" media.
I challenge you to rise above the president you applaud, Gao Lu. Either prove that Mother Jones fabricated some or all of its transcript of the Schenck interview, or acknowledge that you have no factual basis to doubt its accuracy.
-
President Trump is 100 times a better President than the last two Democrat presidents combined.
-
Could it be more evident that satan and his legions could hardly hate more the man God set up, Mr. President Trump? They go to no end of time and effort and sometimes eloquence to tear down builders of nations, strengtheners of the Church, and the glory of the Jesus, Messiah, our Lord, Savior and only God.
Christians are not surprised yet can hardly help being amazed at how effectively the evil one and his minions are exposed, brought out into the open, revealed for their mind-bending measure of negativity, accusation, diatribes against men God has set up to lead. They speak brazenly against the Bible, the divinity of Christ, godly ethics and biblical morals. With audacity they join the Accuser of the Brethren, attacking Christians who actually stand for Christ and His kingdom.
Yet there is a remnant. There are those who love God and express it, those who love the works of God, those who love the creations of God including the world (of people) every soul on earth, all for whom He died. Who here is numbered among them?
