It
was something of a bombshell when news broke that Christianity Today, long the flagship magazine of the Evangelical movement
proclaimed that Trump should be impeached. Since then the magazine has been
denounced by Evangelical leaders as 'leftist', 'Marxist' and no longer faithful
to the Scriptures.
Besides being absurd
accusations, all we can really say is... what a mess. If things weren't already
confusing enough, now this.
Constitutionally,
Trump should be impeached, but not for the Ukraine affair or for some contrived
Russian plot. He is corrupt and has repeatedly broken the law and violated the
Constitution. There are numerous issues that could have been pursued with a
goal toward impeachment. The Ukraine affair 'flared up' immediately (conveniently)
in the wake of the Mueller Report's failures and as such represents a continued
effort to tie Trump and impeachment to the Anti-Russian campaign being waged by
the US Establishment, politically spearheaded by the DNC.
For more on the agenda and goals behind impeaching Trump on
a national security basis see:
Christians shouldn't
be personally involved in this fight. Our position is one in which we are (by
default) in opposition to the political commentators and agitators on all
sides. We have no dog in the fight as we're pilgrims here and yet our concern
is moral and is in terms of truth-telling. Given the Church's unfortunate
involvement in these affairs and the efforts of the myriad false teachers which
would steer it into disobeying Christ and seeking a kingdom of worldly glory
and power, we are forced to reckon (in some capacity) with these questions. Or
to put it differently because the majority position in the increasingly
apostate Church involves the embrace of a heretical politicised theology, we
must oppose it and as such must comment (to a degree) on the political
situation.
Christianity Today has always been about
political and cultural engagement and as far as that goes (assuming their
position for the sake of argument) they have a real point when it comes to the
president. Evangelical support of Trump represents a u-turn, a negation of what
the whole movement was supposed to be about. To acknowledge this is not analogous
to the embrace of Marxism. Those that say so are part of the growing faction of
false teachers and those that are just plain deluded and deceived. Part of an
erroneous theological movement to begin with, they have (seemingly) fallen
under Judgment and have completely lost their way and their bearings.
Regarding the shift in
the Christian Right with regard to Trump, see:
Has Christianity Today changed or have the
leaders of Evangelical movement shifted their position?
There have been
shifts. The Evangelical movement has in some respects moved far to the
political Right and some are reacting to this by a determined move toward the
Centre or more properly Centre-Right... no one in their circles has seriously
entertained abandoning capitalism or nationalism after all. To categorise these
movements as Leftist is to render the political spectrum meaningless.
If the political
spectrum were a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being far Right and 1 being far
Left...the Christian Right of the 1980's was about a 7. Since the 1990's the mainstream
of the Christian Right has migrated to the right and has now moved much closer
to a 9 and in reaction to this some have moved toward maybe a 6.
But here's where the
waters get muddied. For those sitting in the 9 position, everyone who is a 6 or
a 7 is basically a Leftist-Marxist, which is dishonest for in reality those
that hold such positions would be down at position 1. There's little hope in
talking to such people, people that are equating Right-wing positions.... with
Marxism!
At the same time
Evangelical ranks have swelled since the 1990's but in doing so the movement
has made great compromises and as a result the loosely affiliated bloc has been
populated by worldly-minded people, undoubtedly many of them being unconverted.
This point needs to be acknowledged. They think like the world and bring its
values into the Church. Antithesis is a prohibited anathematised concept in Evangelical
circles and through various theological mechanisms worldly thinking has been
sanctioned. Evangelicalism has tied itself to the trajectories and undulations
of culture. This is at the heart of its myriad 'worldview' and 'discernment'
ministries and as society is polarised and in crisis, it's no great shock that
this is echoed within Evangelicalism itself. It's not a steady ship. And it may
be that the polarisation has reached a tipping point as we see schism emerging
in broader Evangelicalism and within its sub-units such as New Calvinism.
While I would say that
in political terms there are movements within the Evangelical mainstream that
have moved more toward the centre just as other elements have moved to the
Far-Right, there is a sense in which Christianity
Today has in fact gone liberal,
but this is largely in the realm of theology. This too is part of the larger
Evangelical story over the past 50+ years. From a compromised view of the text
and an embrace of the academy and a desire to be part of the mainstream, to a
theological dynamic fed by the Evangelical impulse to intertwine itself with
culture and influence it, the doors were opened decades ago, and now the
momentum has turned those doors into floodgates. The Scriptures are up in the
air, their veracity and authority are in question and as a result theology is
being recast as are questions of ethics. This reality, this compromise on the
part of the Evangelical mainstream as represented by Christianity Today (and indeed the very life trajectory of one such
as Billy Graham) in no way gives any credence or validity to those who have
increasingly moved to the socio-political Right and would likewise twist the
Scriptures to accommodate their extreme and anti-Christian views of money,
power, war, violence, ethics in general and the transformative dominionist
theologies they create to buttress these views.
Franklin Graham is
being a bit duplicitous. His father may have voted for Trump... I personally
place no stock in the words of one such as Franklin Graham who I deem a charlatan
and criminal... and yet it is deceptive to paint Billy as an unabashed
Trumpite. He certainly supported Right-wing causes in the past and yet the
record is pretty clear that he has not been on board with the Christian Right's
trajectory over the past 25 years or so. This is where things get a bit
confusing as the Evangelical movement and the Christian Right aren't always
congruent, though there is certainly significant overlap. It all depends on how
these terms are defined, which is no easy task.
Just take for example
someone like Joel Osteen. On the one hand some have rightly pointed out that he
doesn't even meet historical definitions of what an Evangelical is and
therefore shouldn't be associated with the label. The problem is the definition
has migrated and become foggy and it's just as much a sociological term as it
is a theological concept and movement. In the broader sense Osteen is most
definitely an Evangelical and one of the most popular figures within it. While
I have no doubt that Osteen is a Republican and Trump supporter as are most of
his followers, I doubt anyone would classify him as a member of the Christian
Right. He's not terribly political and yet it would be foolish to discount the
role of money in his so-called ministry and in the thinking of those that are
part of his movement.
Is he an Evangelical?
Yes and no. Is he a member of the Christian Right? No, but at the same time he
is certainly in some sense an ally at least when it comes to certain issues. He
and his are going to support Capitalism, Wall Street and certainly they're
going to promote nationalism in their circles. They may not become firebrands
over homosexuality or abortion but most in their circles are essentially
on-board with the Christian Right when it comes to these points. And yet given
that most in his circles are compromised and worldly in their thinking, their
level of devotion to these causes is probably open to question.
Returning to the
Grahams, Billy was the icon of the Evangelical movement and yet had become more
or less a figure of myth and legend. Hailed by all, he wasn't much use to the
movement anymore as he and the Christian Right drifted apart in the 1990's when
the movement took a sharp Right-ward turn in attempting to escalate the Culture
War.
Franklin on the other
hand has been a friend to the Christian Right and remains a zealous supporter
of Donald Trump. He has virtually anathematised anyone who refuses to support
the Wall Street criminal. Corrupt himself and operating under a false view and
vision of the Kingdom, Franklin is truly a discredit to New Testament
Christianity. Even some within the larger Evangelical sphere are troubled by
his path and fear that he will in the end discredit and diminish his father's
legacy. Even such watered-down criticism is interesting in that it demonstrates
the shifts within the larger movement and the somewhat radical nature of
Franklin's Trumpism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.