Built on Sand: Evangelicals Embrace Trump
Look, I know that playing "dueling Bible verses" with evangelicals and fundamentalists is a fool's errand. That's not my intent here. I know I'm not going to persuade anybody of anything. (Ever, actually!) But, I did have an interesting thought, theologically speaking, that I wanted to work through, which is what this lowly blog is for.
Last week, I saw an article by a conservative writer, Jonathan V. Last, who was appalled, or at least very concerned, that anti-abortion evangelicals are hitching their wagon to Trump as the leader and foundation of their cause. Indeed, as the writer pointed out, the phrase "pro-life" cannot be used in any serious sense when it comes to Trump. He's pro-the-life-of-his-base and that's it. Clearly, the commitment to the "seamless garment of life," which is the pro-life movement's strongest argument, is totally absent when it comes to our vile, selfish, amoral-at-best POTUS.
And it struck me that what evangelicals are doing by making Trump the center of their cause*, is building their movement, their house, on an insecure foundation -- to reference Jesus's teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew). In it, he said that anyone who would build their house on anything other than the words of his Sermon -- devoted, as in the Beatitudes, to compassion for the least among us and for carrying out one's piety, and one's life, with humility -- is building their house on "shifting sands," sure to fall when the winds blow heavy. Apparently, evangelicals think there is nothing more solid than a president. That's a seductive idea, given the power of the president, but also plainly absurd. Presidents come and go, and policies and laws are ephemeral. And, yes, I know about all those judges. I'm pro-choice, but if I were pro-life, I think I might want to reconsider the wisdom of linking any moral cause to one such as Trump. And I'm not just "concern trolling" here.
* He spoke to their March for Life rally last week. And, course, they consider him God's chosen representative on earth. And that's not an exaggeration. They literally believe that. As for Trump, he's a narcissist to end all narcissists, so of course he agrees with them. Why wouldn't he?
Last week, I saw an article by a conservative writer, Jonathan V. Last, who was appalled, or at least very concerned, that anti-abortion evangelicals are hitching their wagon to Trump as the leader and foundation of their cause. Indeed, as the writer pointed out, the phrase "pro-life" cannot be used in any serious sense when it comes to Trump. He's pro-the-life-of-his-base and that's it. Clearly, the commitment to the "seamless garment of life," which is the pro-life movement's strongest argument, is totally absent when it comes to our vile, selfish, amoral-at-best POTUS.
And it struck me that what evangelicals are doing by making Trump the center of their cause*, is building their movement, their house, on an insecure foundation -- to reference Jesus's teachings from the Sermon on the Mount (found in Matthew). In it, he said that anyone who would build their house on anything other than the words of his Sermon -- devoted, as in the Beatitudes, to compassion for the least among us and for carrying out one's piety, and one's life, with humility -- is building their house on "shifting sands," sure to fall when the winds blow heavy. Apparently, evangelicals think there is nothing more solid than a president. That's a seductive idea, given the power of the president, but also plainly absurd. Presidents come and go, and policies and laws are ephemeral. And, yes, I know about all those judges. I'm pro-choice, but if I were pro-life, I think I might want to reconsider the wisdom of linking any moral cause to one such as Trump. And I'm not just "concern trolling" here.
* He spoke to their March for Life rally last week. And, course, they consider him God's chosen representative on earth. And that's not an exaggeration. They literally believe that. As for Trump, he's a narcissist to end all narcissists, so of course he agrees with them. Why wouldn't he?
Comments
Post a Comment