OT French Press - Sunday Newsletter

[Chris Craig]

where's duetsche bank? so maybe germany too?

Yeah douche bank is in Germany

 

[Chris Craig]

Should Americans Worry About Amy Coney Barrett and 'People of Praise'?
Let's look at her record.

David French
Sep 27




Let me begin by laying my cards on the table. I’ve long been an admirer of Amy Coney Barrett, both as a person and a jurist. I believe Donald Trump made a mistake when he nominated Brett Kavanaugh instead of Judge Barrett in 2018, and I believe he made the correct pick yesterday. If he wins re-election in November, she should be promptly and quickly confirmed. I persist, however, in my belief that a rapid vote before the election is imprudent. It’s dangerously hypocritical and inflammatory in an already-volatile and cynical time.

Yet those of you following the judicial wars closely know that in some quarters Judge Barrett is especially controversial—beyond the obvious and ongoing judicial differences between progressives and conservatives. There is a persistent religious critique of Judge Barrett that began when Sen. Dianne Feinstein touched off a firestorm by saying to Barrett in her court of appeals confirmation hearing, “The dogma lives loudly within you.”

With those words, it appeared that she was imposing an unconstitutional religious test on Barrett’s bid for public office. Why was she singled out? Yes, she’s a faithful Catholic, but she’s hardly the only faithful Catholic in the federal judiciary (much less the Supreme Court). Her jurisprudence will likely be pro-life to some degree, but she’s hardly the only the judge who’s faced confirmation suspicions that she’ll oppose Roe.

Instead, the claim appears to be that Barrett is unique. She’s not just religious, she’s super-religious. Or perhaps weirdly religious. And that allegedly weird, extreme religiosity makes her judicial integrity and commitment to the Constitution suspect. The critique centers around her membership in an ecumenical (but predominantly Catholic) charismatic Christian group called “People of Praise.” Back in 2018, prominent law professor and former George W. Bush ethics attorney Richard Painter tweeted a rather blunt, succinct critique:


Richard W. Painter @RWPUSA

A religious group in which members take an oath of loyalty to each other and are supervised by a male “head” or female “handmaiden.” That looks like a cult. Now she wants a seat on SCOTUS for the sole purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade. The answer is NO. Some Worry About Judicial Nominee’s Ties to a Religious GroupAmy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s choice for an appeals-court seat, belongs to People of Praise, a tight-knit, oath-bound group with considerable sway over its members.nytimes.com

June 30th 2018

3,463 Retweets5,140 Likes

Friday night, HBO’s Bill Maher called her a “f**kin’ nut” and said she was “Catholic. Really Catholic. I mean, really, really Catholic—like speaking in tongues.” On Thursday Mother Jones published its own concerned report (similar concerns were also printed in Politico):


Mother Jones @MotherJones

Amy Coney Barrett is a member of People of Praise, a charismatic covenant community in South Bend, Indiana, known for the submissive role played by women, some of whom were called “handmaids”—at least until the Handmaid’s Tale aired in 2017. It’s not anti-Catholic to ask Amy Coney Barrett about her religious group People of PraiseBefore the TV show appeared, women leaders were referred to as “handmaids.”bit.ly

September 26th 2020

561 Retweets759 Likes

The media hits just keep on coming. Earlier last week, Newsweek wrongly connected People of Praise to the Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel of religiously inspired sex slavery. Newsweek later corrected its piece, and outlets on the right and left fact-checked it into oblivion. In fact, Vox was unequivocal: “To be absolutely clear: People of Praise is not an inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale, and the group does not practice sexual slavery or any of the other dystopian practices Atwood wrote about in her novel.”

No sex slavery? That’s a relief.

So, if they’re not sex slavers, what is the case against People of Praise? In 2017, the New York Times posted a report titled “Some worry about judicial nominee’s ties to a religious group.” You can read the entire thing, but the core case is contained in these three paragraphs:

Some of the group’s practices would surprise many faithful Catholics. Members of the group swear a lifelong oath of loyalty, called a covenant, to one another, and are assigned and are accountable to a personal adviser, called a “head” for men and a “handmaid” for women. The group teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.

More:

Current and former members say that the heads and handmaids give direction on important decisions, including whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.

And:

Legal scholars said that such loyalty oaths could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality. The scholars said in interviews that while there certainly was no religious test test for office, it would have been relevant for the senators to examine what it means for a judicial nominee to make an oath to a group that could wield significant authority over its members’ lives.

The more I looked into People of Praise, the more I had two simultaneous thoughts: First, many millions of American Christians see echoes of their lives in Judge Barrett’s story. And second, lots of folks really don’t understand both spiritual authority and spiritual community. The concerns about Barrett reflect in part the glaring gaps in religious knowledge in elite American media.

In other words, New York Times executive editor Dean Baquet was right when he told NPR’s Terry Gross, “We don't get religion. We don't get the role of religion in people's lives.”

So let’s try to “get religion,” especially in the context of close-knit religious fellowships like People of Praise. First, outside of true cults, the concept of spiritual authority and spiritual “headship” is quite divorced from the lurid fears and imaginations of many Americans—and it rarely has anything at all to do with law, politics, or the American Constitution. It has much more to do with religious doctrine and religious practice—orthodoxy and orthopraxy. And words and terms that sound strange to secular ears are simply biblical and traditional to countless Christian Americans.

I’ll give you an example. My family recently moved from Columbia, Tennessee, to Franklin, Tennessee, and that meant we had to move on from our beloved Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation in Columbia to join a new church. When we joined that church, we took membership vows, and those vows included a promise to submit ourselves “to the government and discipline of the church.”

Combine that pledge with the reality that there is a category of elders in the PCA called “ruling elders” (yep, that’s the term), and it’s easy to imagine the essays expressing concern if I were ever nominated to anything (no chance of that!)— “David French has agreed to ‘submit’ to the ‘government and discipline’ of his ‘ruling elders.’ Can he be trusted to uphold his oath of office?”

It gets even worse. “French consults with his so-called ‘rulers’ on matters relating to his marriage, his career, and his finances. He even joins small groups of believers, and those groups often have leaders who ‘hold him accountable’ to the doctrines and practices of his faith.”

Sounds ominous, right? It might even sound a little culty. But then you realize what’s actually happening. To the extent that the leaders exert real authority, it’s to uphold the teachings of the church—making sure that the words of the church (in the pulpit and in Sunday School) match the beliefs of the church.

To the extent that the leaders impose discipline, it’s after a careful and compassionate process that provides ample opportunities for repentance—such as urging an adulterous husband to return to his wife and removing him from church membership if he does not.

What about all that “interference” in marriage, careers, and finances? Well, that’s the totally normal and valuable process of providing counsel and prayer to individuals who might be facing a crossroads or a crisis. Sure, an elder or leader might have real influence, but that’s because they’ve demonstrated actual wisdom and spiritual maturity. Their words are worth hearing.

Moreover, tight-knit Christian communities aren’t “weird” or “strange.” Instead, they provide an immense blessing of close fellowship, of deep friendships. Because people are highly imperfect, there is no question that some communities and some fellowships can be dysfunctional, but the mere existence of the fellowship is not suspicious.

And what about the “strangeness” of the charismatic movement? While there are certainly extreme elements within charismatic Christianity (roughly defined as the strand of the faith that believes spiritual gifts—like healing, prophecy, and tongues—described in the New Testament persist today), it also happens to be one of the fastest-growing faiths in the world.

A branch of Christianity that began with the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles in 1906 now counts more than half a billion believers worldwide.

In fact, I have direct experience with a tight-knit group that experienced a charismatic renewal. No, it wasn’t Catholic. We were almost entirely Protestant. I didn’t speak in tongues, but I experienced perhaps the greatest period of sustained spiritual growth in my life. I made friends that have lasted a lifetime. Most of us lived together, we ate together, and—yes—we held each other accountable. We had leaders we looked up to for spiritual guidance and wisdom.

What was the name of that group? The Harvard Law School Christian Fellowship. And one of our key leaders, a woman of tremendous faith, is now the Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard. The rest of us are scattered across the country, and many are doing remarkable and compassionate works for our nation and for the church.

And that brings me to my final point. Any evaluation of actual people in real religious fellowships can and should apply a simple scriptural test, “You will recognize them by their fruits.”

And what are the fruits of the People of Praise? While every group has disgruntled members (I’m sure you can find one or two from my church), the overall response is glowing. As I wrote when Barrett’s faith first became controversial:

t’s a group so nefarious that the late Cardinal Francis George wrote, “In my acquaintance with the People of Praise, I have found men and women dedicated to God and eager to seek and do His divine will. They are shaped by love of Holy Scripture, prayer and community; and the Church’s mission is richer for their presence.” It’s so dastardly that Pope Francis appointed one of its members as auxiliary bishop of Portland. And it’s so insular that it’s founded three schools that have won a total of seven [now nine] Department of Education Blue Ribbon awards.

And what are the fruits of Judge Barrett’s life? She’s a mom of seven kids, two adopted and one with special needs. She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, she was a respected law professor, and now she’s a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s already written standout opinions during her time on the bench.

Progressive Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman, who clerked alongside Barrett at the Supreme Court in the late 1990s, endorsed her yesterday in a Bloomberg essay. After first decrying Republican hypocrisy surrounding her nomination, Feldman says this:

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I’ll say one last thing about Barrett’s faith. A fundamental aspect of faithful Christian commitment is truthfulness. “Let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no.” Barrett has a reputation for integrity.

So when she declares that her judicial opinions are guided by the facts of the case and the text of the law — and not the doctrines of her church or the leadership of her religious fellowship — and when that declaration is buttressed by an impressive record of scholarship and jurisprudence, Americans can be sure that Trump has nominated a serious conservative scholar and good and decent person to the highest court in the land.

Her religion isn't the issue. Its that she will judge based on her religion rather than the constitution. She will help undo decades of precedent and undo 60-70 years of progress.

That might be cool with you because your beliefs get upheld, but it screws alot of people over.

 

[ABM]

Her religion isn't the issue. Its that she will judge based on her religion rather than the constitution. She will help undo decades of precedent and undo 60-70 years of progress.

That might be cool with you because your beliefs get upheld, but it screws alot of people over.

Faith ain't such a bad thing.

 

[Chris Craig]

Faith ain't such a bad thing.

Faith isn't a bad thing at all. But, religion doesn't belong in the decision making process on the supreme court.

 

[ABM]

Faith isn't a bad thing at all. But, religion doesn't belong in the decision making process on the supreme court.

Got it. Fine for the President of the United States. But don't put it in the hands of real decision makers.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Got it. Fine for the President of the United States. But don't put it in the hands of real decision makers.

You’re not actually implying that Trump is truly religious are you??? Even you can’t be that oblivious.....he uses religion like most people us toilet paper.

 

[Chris Craig]

Got it. Fine for the President of the United States. But don't put it in the hands of real decision makers.

I didnt say that. Don't put words in my mouth. That ad was to get religous people to vote for him, to get out the good dude vibe.

Its like when people were freaked out Kennedy would be controlled by the Vatican or would use his religion in decision making as president. He did not. Neither will Biden.

As Kennedy said, "I am not the Catholic candidate for president, I am Democratic candidate for president, who happens to be catholic."

The same goes for Biden.

Barrett, who will be a SC justice has already shown in her judicial career that her religion plays a part in her decision making as a judge. That cannot be the case on the SC.

 

[Chris Craig]

You’re not actually implying that Trump is truly religious are you??? Even you can’t be that oblivious.....he uses religion like most people us toilet paper.

No, he was saying I said it was fine if Biden used his religion in decision making as President. I did not.

 

[ABM]

You’re not actually implying that Trump is truly religious are you??? Even you can’t be that oblivious.....he uses religion like most people us toilet paper.

Nothing to do with Trump.

 

[ABM]

Barrett, who will be a SC justice has already shown in her judicial career that her religion plays a part in her decision making as a judge. That cannot be the case on the SC.

Agreed. We will find out more during the hearings.

 

[barfo]

Agreed. We will find out more during the hearings.

Not likely. Nowadays SC nominees are trained to offer no opinions, and to disclaim any prior opinions as academic in nature and not indicative of how they'd rule on the bench. The hearings will reveal nothing.

barfo

 

[ABM]

Not likely. Nowadays SC nominees are trained to offer no opinions, and to disclaim any prior opinions as academic in nature and not indicative of how they'd rule on the bench. The hearings will reveal nothing.

barfo

Well, Kavanaugh's was certainly a barnstorm.

OK, if for no other reason, for entertainment purposes, then. Heh.

 

[ABM]

Praying for a Reckless President
For Christians, there should be no such thing as schadenfreude and no thought of karma.
David French
Oct 4



Let me begin by stating a simple and obvious truth—in a pandemic, it is extraordinarily difficult to guarantee your safety or the safety of those around you. Even careful people can catch the virus. There are essential workers who have done everything right, and they’ve fallen ill. That’s when we use words like “tragic” and sometimes even “heroic” when people face risks for us and soldier on anyway.

But then there are other cases—when people arrogantly defy all that we know about the illness, behave as if the basic rules of epidemiology don’t apply to them, and demand one form of behavior from the public while living an entirely different reality in the places they control. When illness comes, then we use words like “inevitable” to describe the outbreak or “reckless” to describe the behavior.

It’s vital to distinguish between these circumstances, including when evaluating our leaders. The circumstances of how an illness is caught and spread can and should influence how we think and vote. It should even influence how we pray.

As I write this newsletter, President Trump is hospitalized with COVID, and he’s suffering from symptoms of unknown severity. I say “unknown” because his own White House is distributing contradictory information. At a formal press conference, his physician painted a sunny outlook, saying that he was not on oxygen, that he had no longer has a fever, and that Trump was in good spirits. At the same time, he refused to share the temperature of the president’s fever the day before, refused to say whether the president had ever been on oxygen, and provided information that contradicted the official timeline of Trump’s diagnosis.

Moments later, Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said, “The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning, and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care. We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.” (He later provided a different analysis, telling Reuters that the president is doing “very well.”)

Worse still, a steadily increasing number of public officials, including members of Trump’s administration and GOP senators, are reporting positive COVID diagnoses. Again, in a pandemic, these diagnoses are not terribly surprising. Nor should they necessarily trigger public outrage. Until you see this—footage from the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination event at the White House:


Don Moynihan @donmoyn

What do you think when you see this? I think about the fact I won’t be at my parents 50th wedding anniversary this month because these people did not believe they had any real obligation to govern wisely

October 3rd 2020

5,367 Retweets23,003 Likes


As you watch, note that at least two of the unmasked huggers, Sen. Mike Lee and Chris Christie, have both tested positive (Sen. Lee told Guy Benson that he’d tested negative in a rapid test before the event, but there’s evidence the White House was misusing a test known to produce a large percentage of false negatives). As I type, this is the seating chart of positive tests:


POLITICO @politico

Since last Saturday's Rose Garden SCOTUS announcement, these people have tested positive for Covid-19: • President Trump • Melania Trump • Rev. John Jenkins • Sen. Mike Lee • Sen. Thom Tillis • Kellyanne Conway • Chris Christie The latest politi.co/30rox78

October 3rd 2020

414 Retweets652 Likes

I can go on and on describing White House recklessness. As the positive tests multiply to include Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and Republican Party chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, we are reminded that not only did Trump himself mock Joe Biden’s cautious approach to masking during the debate, but —according to reports—members of the Trump entourage defied debate rules and refused to wear masks in the debate hall. A “culture of invincibility” allegedly permeated the White House.

And then, finally, as if to remind us that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” the internet unearthed the clip below of Trump cruelly mocking Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia. The date? October 2, 2016—four years to the day before Trump was admitted to the hospital suffering from COVID:


The Telegraph @Telegraph

Donald Trump mocks Hillary Clinton over her pneumonia outbreak

October 2nd 2016

20,590 Retweets33,520 Likes


Even as all this was unfolding (as my colleague Jonah Goldberg pointed out in his excellent newsletter yesterday) many of the president’s defenders ignored the administration’s failures and instead went on an online search-and-destroy mission to find and shame public voices who’d expressed satisfaction or even glee at the president’s condition.

It’s as if this terrible moment was just another opportunity to express how bad “the left” is, in spite of the fact that numerous, prominent Trump-critical voices on the left and the right immediately and unreservedly expressed sympathy for the president and said they’d pray for him.

So let’s discuss those prayers. For Christians, praying for national leaders is imperative. No matter your politics, there should be no such thing as schadenfreude and no thought of concepts like karma. As Paul told Timothy, “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” should be made “for all people,” including for “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

This sounds all very nice and kind—and it can be immensely reassuring when partisan warriors for a moment lay aside their political weapons to unite in prayer for a president’s health and well-being—but in reality those prayers can and should seek God’s intervention in meaningful and often painful ways. We must pray for justice, for mercy, and—critically—for the humility that leads to repentance.

As votes are being cast in a presidential campaign, American Christians are in a position quite different from Roman-era believers. We have a level of earthly power that our Christian forefathers could scarcely imagine. Our biblical obligation to “act justly” becomes all the more meaningful when we have actual authority to hold our leaders accountable for their misdeeds.

That means seeking and praying for justice in real time, during an election, even when men and women fall ill and need sympathy and care. That means asking God to reveal hidden things, to bring to light wrongdoing that lurks in the shadows. That means asking God to protect America from the actions and influence of unjust men.

But the quest for justice must be tempered by a fervent desire (a love, even) for mercy. At the heart of the Christian Gospel is the availability of grace so profound that not one of us receives the justice we so richly deserve.

How many times have each of us done wrong and prayed fervently that we should not suffer the natural and logical consequences of our own foolishness? How many times have we felt immense relief when a gracious and loving God has spared us when our actions cried out for a punishment immensely greater than we received?

And should we not seek that same blessing for others—including when those others may be political enemies who’ve behaved recklessly or maliciously?

It is thus right and good to pray for the speedy healing and quick recovery even of a reckless president. That does not relieve him of political accountability for his actions—or us of the obligation to hold him to account—but we all know what it is like to suffer. We all know what it is like to feel pain. We should pray against his pain.

But here’s where the prayers grow richer and deeper. We shouldn’t simply pray that a president’s trials cease. We can and should also pray that his trials bear fruit—the fruit of humility and repentance. The record of scripture is clear. Times of trial should bring about transformation, and one of the roles of God’s people is to speak truth to convict the powerful of their sin.

The story of the prophet Nathan’s confrontation with David is perhaps the most famous such confrontation in biblical history. David had been caught in his affair and his plot to kill Bathsheba’s husband. In a single powerful scriptural moment you see justice, mercy, and humility come together at once.

David is held to account and told that he will suffer grave consequences for his wrongdoing. Yet he does not receive all the justice he deserves. God spares David’s life and takes away David’s sin. David is filled with sincere sorrow, and Psalm 51—his song of repentance—contains this heartfelt plea: “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.”

Indeed, God has even reached rulers directly through illness and pain. Daniel 4 contains the memorable story of the madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. At the height of his power and might, he was struck down until he repented of his arrogance and acknowledged the power of God. The believer knows that the most prideful human heart isn’t beyond the reach of redemptive grace.

Note that none of this is partisan. Republican Christians should seek justice when even the men and women they vote for act recklessly. Democratic Christians should love mercy even when an aggressive political opponent has shown no similar consideration in return. And Christians of all political persuasions should humbly (and with full knowledge of our own frailty) seek true repentance from men and women in power. Their transformation benefits us all.

However, if political pride prevails even when mercy abounds, the need for accountability becomes clear. Believers must pray for President Trump’s speedy recovery, but justice may still demand his resounding defeat.

One last thing…

I’m going to indulge in a Sunday French Press first, a repeat song. There are times when I honestly wonder how much more we can take—how much more disease, how much more economic uncertainty, how much more conflict, and how much more chaos. But, still, it is well with our souls. And this modern adaptation/variation of one of the most powerful of all Christian hymns (written in the aftermath of dark tragedy) is worth hearing and believing:

 

[wizenheimer]

"praying for a reckless president"...what a load of malarkey

the hell with that reckless president.

 

[Lanny]

Praying for a Reckless President
For Christians, there should be no such thing as schadenfreude and no thought of karma.
David French
Oct 4



Let me begin by stating a simple and obvious truth—in a pandemic, it is extraordinarily difficult to guarantee your safety or the safety of those around you. Even careful people can catch the virus. There are essential workers who have done everything right, and they’ve fallen ill. That’s when we use words like “tragic” and sometimes even “heroic” when people face risks for us and soldier on anyway.

But then there are other cases—when people arrogantly defy all that we know about the illness, behave as if the basic rules of epidemiology don’t apply to them, and demand one form of behavior from the public while living an entirely different reality in the places they control. When illness comes, then we use words like “inevitable” to describe the outbreak or “reckless” to describe the behavior.

It’s vital to distinguish between these circumstances, including when evaluating our leaders. The circumstances of how an illness is caught and spread can and should influence how we think and vote. It should even influence how we pray.

As I write this newsletter, President Trump is hospitalized with COVID, and he’s suffering from symptoms of unknown severity. I say “unknown” because his own White House is distributing contradictory information. At a formal press conference, his physician painted a sunny outlook, saying that he was not on oxygen, that he had no longer has a fever, and that Trump was in good spirits. At the same time, he refused to share the temperature of the president’s fever the day before, refused to say whether the president had ever been on oxygen, and provided information that contradicted the official timeline of Trump’s diagnosis.

Moments later, Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, said, “The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning, and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care. We’re still not on a clear path to a full recovery.” (He later provided a different analysis, telling Reuters that the president is doing “very well.”)

Worse still, a steadily increasing number of public officials, including members of Trump’s administration and GOP senators, are reporting positive COVID diagnoses. Again, in a pandemic, these diagnoses are not terribly surprising. Nor should they necessarily trigger public outrage. Until you see this—footage from the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination event at the White House:


Don Moynihan @donmoyn

What do you think when you see this? I think about the fact I won’t be at my parents 50th wedding anniversary this month because these people did not believe they had any real obligation to govern wisely

October 3rd 2020

5,367 Retweets23,003 Likes


As you watch, note that at least two of the unmasked huggers, Sen. Mike Lee and Chris Christie, have both tested positive (Sen. Lee told Guy Benson that he’d tested negative in a rapid test before the event, but there’s evidence the White House was misusing a test known to produce a large percentage of false negatives). As I type, this is the seating chart of positive tests:


POLITICO @politico

Since last Saturday's Rose Garden SCOTUS announcement, these people have tested positive for Covid-19: • President Trump • Melania Trump • Rev. John Jenkins • Sen. Mike Lee • Sen. Thom Tillis • Kellyanne Conway • Chris Christie The latest politi.co/30rox78

October 3rd 2020

414 Retweets652 Likes

I can go on and on describing White House recklessness. As the positive tests multiply to include Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and Republican Party chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, we are reminded that not only did Trump himself mock Joe Biden’s cautious approach to masking during the debate, but —according to reports—members of the Trump entourage defied debate rules and refused to wear masks in the debate hall. A “culture of invincibility” allegedly permeated the White House.

And then, finally, as if to remind us that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” the internet unearthed the clip below of Trump cruelly mocking Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia. The date? October 2, 2016—four years to the day before Trump was admitted to the hospital suffering from COVID:


The Telegraph @Telegraph

Donald Trump mocks Hillary Clinton over her pneumonia outbreak

October 2nd 2016

20,590 Retweets33,520 Likes


Even as all this was unfolding (as my colleague Jonah Goldberg pointed out in his excellent newsletter yesterday) many of the president’s defenders ignored the administration’s failures and instead went on an online search-and-destroy mission to find and shame public voices who’d expressed satisfaction or even glee at the president’s condition.

It’s as if this terrible moment was just another opportunity to express how bad “the left” is, in spite of the fact that numerous, prominent Trump-critical voices on the left and the right immediately and unreservedly expressed sympathy for the president and said they’d pray for him.

So let’s discuss those prayers. For Christians, praying for national leaders is imperative. No matter your politics, there should be no such thing as schadenfreude and no thought of concepts like karma. As Paul told Timothy, “supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings” should be made “for all people,” including for “kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

This sounds all very nice and kind—and it can be immensely reassuring when partisan warriors for a moment lay aside their political weapons to unite in prayer for a president’s health and well-being—but in reality those prayers can and should seek God’s intervention in meaningful and often painful ways. We must pray for justice, for mercy, and—critically—for the humility that leads to repentance.

As votes are being cast in a presidential campaign, American Christians are in a position quite different from Roman-era believers. We have a level of earthly power that our Christian forefathers could scarcely imagine. Our biblical obligation to “act justly” becomes all the more meaningful when we have actual authority to hold our leaders accountable for their misdeeds.

That means seeking and praying for justice in real time, during an election, even when men and women fall ill and need sympathy and care. That means asking God to reveal hidden things, to bring to light wrongdoing that lurks in the shadows. That means asking God to protect America from the actions and influence of unjust men.

But the quest for justice must be tempered by a fervent desire (a love, even) for mercy. At the heart of the Christian Gospel is the availability of grace so profound that not one of us receives the justice we so richly deserve.

How many times have each of us done wrong and prayed fervently that we should not suffer the natural and logical consequences of our own foolishness? How many times have we felt immense relief when a gracious and loving God has spared us when our actions cried out for a punishment immensely greater than we received?

And should we not seek that same blessing for others—including when those others may be political enemies who’ve behaved recklessly or maliciously?

It is thus right and good to pray for the speedy healing and quick recovery even of a reckless president. That does not relieve him of political accountability for his actions—or us of the obligation to hold him to account—but we all know what it is like to suffer. We all know what it is like to feel pain. We should pray against his pain.

But here’s where the prayers grow richer and deeper. We shouldn’t simply pray that a president’s trials cease. We can and should also pray that his trials bear fruit—the fruit of humility and repentance. The record of scripture is clear. Times of trial should bring about transformation, and one of the roles of God’s people is to speak truth to convict the powerful of their sin.

The story of the prophet Nathan’s confrontation with David is perhaps the most famous such confrontation in biblical history. David had been caught in his affair and his plot to kill Bathsheba’s husband. In a single powerful scriptural moment you see justice, mercy, and humility come together at once.

David is held to account and told that he will suffer grave consequences for his wrongdoing. Yet he does not receive all the justice he deserves. God spares David’s life and takes away David’s sin. David is filled with sincere sorrow, and Psalm 51—his song of repentance—contains this heartfelt plea: “Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me.”

Indeed, God has even reached rulers directly through illness and pain. Daniel 4 contains the memorable story of the madness of King Nebuchadnezzar. At the height of his power and might, he was struck down until he repented of his arrogance and acknowledged the power of God. The believer knows that the most prideful human heart isn’t beyond the reach of redemptive grace.

Note that none of this is partisan. Republican Christians should seek justice when even the men and women they vote for act recklessly. Democratic Christians should love mercy even when an aggressive political opponent has shown no similar consideration in return. And Christians of all political persuasions should humbly (and with full knowledge of our own frailty) seek true repentance from men and women in power. Their transformation benefits us all.

However, if political pride prevails even when mercy abounds, the need for accountability becomes clear. Believers must pray for President Trump’s speedy recovery, but justice may still demand his resounding defeat.

One last thing…

I’m going to indulge in a Sunday French Press first, a repeat song. There are times when I honestly wonder how much more we can take—how much more disease, how much more economic uncertainty, how much more conflict, and how much more chaos. But, still, it is well with our souls. And this modern adaptation/variation of one of the most powerful of all Christian hymns (written in the aftermath of dark tragedy) is worth hearing and believing:

It's all about the odds. I prefer the odds or riding in a taxi driven by a careful driver over riding in one with a reckless driver.

 

[lawai'a]

https://time.com/5896949/donald-trump-not-pro-life/
Donald Trump Is Not Pro-Life. His Response to COVID-19 Proves It.
By David French
October 6, 2020 4:08 PM EDT
French is a senior editor at The Dispatch and a columnist for Time. . He is a former major in the United States Army Reserve.

As Americans have begun to vote in the presidential election, one must make an important distinction in Donald Trump’s record in office. It’s entirely fair to call him nominally anti-abortion. It’s not credible to call him pro-life. And the distinction matters.

As a young pro-life activist, I still remember the publication of Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, its words touched this Protestant’s heart, and when he rooted the pro-life principle in the “incomparable worth of the human person,” it crystalized not just my opposition to abortion but also an aspirational ethic of care for all persons – from conception to natural death.

“Life on earth,” said John Paul, “is a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.”

To be sure, it is often difficult to discern which policies are best-crafted to uphold and protect every person’s “incomparable worth” – and even well-intentioned policies can have negative effects – but it is abundantly clear that while pro-life leaders will often be forced to make tough choices, their words and deeds must be grounded in that fundamental truth.

Trump has failed this test, and his response to the Coronavirus pandemic makes that failure plain. He’s not only failed the American people, his recent conduct after he was stricken with the disease demonstrates that he has even failed his friends, colleagues and those sworn to serve him.

It’s a testament to the speed of the news cycle and the sheer number of Trump scandals that the public has apparently moved on from Bob Woodward’s revelation that Trump knew the virus was “deadly stuff” and “worse than even your strenuous flus” in early February yet continued to intentionally downplay its severity to the American people, including by comparing it to the flu, as he’s still doing today.

This deception was of course accompanied by an avalanche of right-wing mockery of and resistance to mask-wearing, including mockery from Trump himself. At the first presidential debate (when Trump may have already been COVID-positive), Trump said, “I don’t have — I don’t wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from them and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”
The administration’s disregard of basic health protocols, including both masking and social distancing was on full display at the White House ceremony introducing Amy Coney Barrett to the American people. For a nation now accustomed to prudent masking and limiting close personal contact (especially indoors), the images were shocking. Unmasked leaders, including people with potential health vulnerabilities, were hugging and close-talking. And now the roll call of attendees who have tested positive for Coronavirus is shocking and long.

Compounding the deception and disregard, what did President Trump do after he was released from the hospital? He once again compared the virus to the flu – misinformation so obvious that Twitter immediately flagged it as “potentially harmful” and Facebook removed the post.

By deceiving Americans he left millions in denial about the spread of a deadly virus, and they behaved accordingly. By scorning mask-wearing, he helped create a ridiculous mask culture war that renders it politically incorrect in parts of the right to engage in one of the easiest and most basic practices to protect the health of your neighbors and colleagues.
One is flatly denying the “incomparable worth of the human person” when they fail to follow basic, common-sense masking guidelines. One is instead indulging in a form of petty selfishness that has cost an untold number of lives.

The pandemic would be challenging under any circumstances, but the United States has so far recorded one of the worst responses of any advanced democracy in the world. A terrible total of over 210,000 Americans have died, and hundreds more die every day. Excess death data indicates the true toll is likely much higher.

By any measure, the Coronavirus pandemic has been a public health catastrophe. Yet the president and his team still downplay its severity. They still mock Joe Biden’s mask-wearing.

Nothing about this is pro-life. Nothing.

Yet there are Americans who will go to the polls convinced that Trump is the only pro-life candidate – exclusively based on his professed opposition to abortion. But how committed is Donald Trump to restricting abortion, really? If you look at his record across his time in office it is revealing. For instance, Planned Parenthood received a record amount of taxpayer funds in 2019, and this year received $80 million in federal coronavirus relief funds. Or take the fact that the two Supreme Court justices he nominated and confirmed (so far) did vote to uphold a mild Louisiana abortion restriction, but they notably did not join Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion that clearly condemned Roe.
We know what it looks like when Trump is committed to a cause. Witness his deployment of the military to the border and his defiant diversion of military funds to begin construction of his border wall. Has he showed the same commitment to, say, ending taxpayer support for the nation’s largest abortion provider?

The bottom line is that Trump will end his first term with the nation’s abortion laws largely intact and without engaging in a single serious effort to defund Planned Parenthood. He will also end his first term with a legacy of deception, failure, and callous disregard for the lives and health of even his friends and colleagues in the face of an infectious disease that has killed more than 200,000 of his fellow citizens.

Look at Donald Trump’s complete record. Examine all his rhetoric. Is his presidency characterized by words and deeds that affirm the “incomparable worth of the human person”? Has he treated “life on earth” as a “sacred reality” entrusted to him? The answer is clearly no. His selfish and reckless actions have cost lives. They’re still costing lives. By no fair measure is Donald Trump truly “pro-life.”

One is flatly denying the “incomparable worth of the human person” when they fail to follow basic, common-sense masking guidelines. One is instead indulging in a form of petty selfishness that has cost an untold number of lives.

 

[ABM]

I'm gonna check this out later this evening....

 

[lawai'a]

I'm gonna check this out later this evening....

pretty funny while fox was dissing democrats that they weren't for anything except against trump, now that Biden policy is out there to be picked up on and read, they have chosen to try to make the case that it is trump because "anybody but biden"because there is no cohesive policy coming from the administration to counter it.
said it right in the beginning, god is bigger than the boogie man, or the monstrers on tv. metaxas wrote it for children, but it was always the boogie man that he used to justify a vote for trump. esoterically explaining things like cultural marxism and socialism was a turn off, i didn't need the version of the truth he put forward., those were the very things Biden ran against in defeating Sanders, medicaid for all, defunding police, etc. so the radical left obviously doesn't have nearly the power he claims it does, and they are the very things the democratic party rejected in voting for Biden in the primaries. sanders lost by more than 2:1 in delegates.
French compellingly leads one down the path to the very core of " character matters" throughout. IMHO. to reject that is in many ways to reject the teachings i have embraced my whole life. to embrace Trumpism, goes against nearly everything i have read and been taught concerning the gospels and new testament of the bible. i completely reject that i need to accept the failings of character of the candidate in order to achieve 'safety" from the boogie man and the fear metaxas engenders. he (trump) is not my saviour.

at aprox. 1:25 metaxas is asked to reconcile his(trump's) moral failures with his policy successes and rejects that trump has any moral failures and nor does he(trump) have obligation to including the need to explain failing to reject conspiracy and white supremacy. tough to defend that IMHO.

 

[ABM]

The Spiritual Blessing of Political Homelessness
On the liberating power of a political declaration of independence.

David French
Oct 18



I first began to notice the discontent even before Trump. The rise of negative partisanship and the corresponding intolerance for dissent within political parties (does anyone remember the endless “RINO” hunts of the Obama era?) amplified a sense of both Christian discontent and Christian fear. You may have had material disagreements with your own tribe, but at the same time you heard the voices urging you to hold fast. Can you possibly let the other side win? After all, they will destroy us. They will destroy our country.

(Never mind that their ranks are also full of millions of Christian believers.)

But there’s something deeply unsatisfying about that stance. Your spirit rebels against the imperative to be a team player, to not call out clear injustice on your own side—to focus exclusively on your opponent’s sins. You remember Christ’s warning about noting the speck in your brother’s eye, when there’s a log in your own, and you wonder—can that apply even to politics?

Eventually, you might even reach a breaking point. Perhaps someone on your “team” does something terribly wrong, and it’s just too much. Or perhaps you see a profound injustice, but only the other side truly seems motivated to address it. You’re pro-life, and that’s a reason why you want to join a throng of thousands and say words that are necessary and true—“Black lives matter.”

But the instant you do, you get the questions and critiques. “Are you a cultural Marxist now?” “Don’t you know about Critical Race Theory?” “Have you read the official BLM website?” When all you wanted to do was stand against racism and brutality, a cause that is unquestionably just.

More and more, thoughtful (mainly young) Christians say to me, “I’m pro-life, I believe in religious freedom and free speech, I think we should welcome immigrants and refugees, and I desperately want racial reconciliation. Where do I fit in?” The answer is clear. Nowhere.

And that truth is a blessing, if you embrace it.

Late last month, Tim Keller, founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, created a stir by specifically resisting the political imperatives of negative partisanship. In the New York Times, he wrote that neither party aligns perfectly with biblical commitments to justice. And he decried “package deal ethics,” where political parties “insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions.” Under this ethic, if your faction loses the primary, you have one choice—fall in line. Here’s Keller:

This emphasis on package deals puts pressure on Christians in politics. For example, following both the Bible and the early church, Christians should be committed to racial justice and the poor, but also to the understanding that sex is only for marriage and for nurturing family. One of those views seems liberal and the other looks oppressively conservative. The historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments.

As our culture becomes increasingly secular, there is no reason to believe that either party’s political agenda will closely match the demands of biblical justice. And even if the parties were united in achieving biblical goals, then the means of pursuing those goals would still be subject to debate.

So, what should we do when contemporary political alignments do not match Christian moral imperatives? Declare independence.

No, that does not mean always voting third-party (though that’s a viable and respectable option). Nor does it mean refusing to work for a politician or run for office yourself. But it does mean holding that political affiliation very, very lightly.

To put it differently, your commitment to Christ is permanent, eternal. Your commitment to a party or a politician is transient, ephemeral.

On the surface, this feels like a hard road to walk in a highly polarized time. And it can be. There’s an immense comfort in a sense of political belonging, especially if you live in a deep-blue or deep-red region. It can be personally difficult to chart a different path.

But there are deep rewards. First, it liberates you from uncomfortable and destructive associations and arguments. While the Bible promises Christians that they’ll face challenges and sometimes-fierce opposition in their lives, it is vastly better to face opposition for the things you actually believe and the values you actually hold rather than being forced to align with an ideological and political “package” you do not want to purchase.

Second, it opens up opportunities for unlikely friendships and unexpected relationships. It changes your posture towards the world to one that welcomes allies case-by-case. It cultivates a posture of openness and fellowship.

I can work with a critical race theorist to end the injustice of qualified immunity, for example, without embracing critical race theory. I might next defend Christian students from a challenge to their religious liberty, joining with “law and order” Republicans I just opposed and opposing critical race theorists I just joined.

Third, it can increase your knowledge. When a person who possesses a partisan mind faces a new challenge, he often immediately retreats to his cocoon to discern his response. We find “our” experts, and “our” experts don’t challenge our minds so much as they equip us to fight the partisan wars to come. An independent mind does its imperfect best to seek truth wherever it is found, including intentionally seeking out the best opposing arguments.

When you prioritize truth over tribe, it’s amazing how much more truth you’ll learn.

Fourth, in an interesting way, openness can increase influence. I’ll give you a secular example. One of the strangest and most fascinating developments in the ongoing conservative civil war has been the sheer amount of vitriol directed at libertarians. To read the words of some nationalist conservatives, you’d think that the Republican Party was under the thumb of libertarian think tanks and that libertarianism had somehow become a dominant ideological strand of American life.

On the one hand—given our highly-regulated economy, our culture of mass incarceration, and our nineteen-year war in Afghanistan—it seems laughable (and is indeed a joke in libertarian circles) that libertarians have a particularly powerful position in American life. On the other hand, it is true that libertarians punch well above their numerical weight. It’s worth exploring why.

The short answer is simple: If you agree with libertarians, they will work with you, and even a small additional infusion of energy and resources can win the day. Are you a black Democrat trying to create educational alternatives in urban schools? You’ve got a libertarian friend. Are you a white Christian Republican battling progressive speech codes and cancel culture on a college campus? Don’t look now, but there’s your libertarian pal, sporting his Reason Magazine t-shirt and smelling faintly of freshly-smoked weed. But he’s got your back.

As I write in the first chapter of my book, I’ve been on a journey out of partisanship. I see now how my past partisanship led me astray, harming relationships and blinding me to sources of truth outside my bubble. I’ve changed how I think, how I write, and how I engage with my political opponents.

It’s of course changed how I vote too. I used to vote straight-ticket Republican. Now, every candidate has to pass the same two-part test. First, does this person possess the character necessary for the office he or she seeks? And second, do they broadly share my political values? Fail either prong, and you don’t get my vote. I’ll vote (or write in) someone who does, regardless of party.

I like how National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru and Princeton’s Robby George put the choice: “To vote for a candidate for president is to have an infinitesimal effect on the outcome of the election, but to wholly determine whom one wills to be president.” That’s what a declaration of independence looks like, and a declaration of independence is the first step to melting the idols of political allegiance.

One more thing …

Last week I wrote about Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s righteous defense of religious liberty in Washington D.C. This week, my friends at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty have filed an important lawsuit against Andrew Cuomo seeking a court order permitting Bais Yaakov Ateres Miriam (BYAM) school for Jewish girls to open for in-person instruction.

Should this be a hard case? No, says Becket:

In a different case, a court might be asked to ascertain the point at which this fundamental right must yield to a government’s claim that in-person education poses a public health risk. Indeed, this Court already considered the public health claim once in Soos v. Cuomo, ___ F. Supp. 3d ____, 2020 WL 3488742 (N.D.N.Y. June 26, 2020), enjoining Governor Cuomo’s and Mayor de Blasio’s efforts to apply an indoor capacity limitation only on houses of worship.

But this case is even easier, because here the Governor himself openly admits that COVID-19 is “not being spread by schools,” and the Mayor agrees that there has been “very little coronavirus activity” in schools. And BYAM is particularly safe, both because it follows rigorous protocols—resulting in zero known cases to date in the school—and because it plans to test all students and staff before returning to school on October 27.

Nor can the government claim that the targeted Jewish neighborhoods have particularly high levels of COVID-19. To the contrary, Governor Cuomo recently stated that the COVID-19 levels at issue are quite low (“To other states that’s nothing”). Indeed, across the entire country, there is not a single other state whose protocols require school closures for the COVID-19 levels that have been used to justify the current shutdown.

Of course the defendants will have the opportunity to contest these claims, but the key question centers around the judicial test that the court applies to the state’s actions.

I’ve argued this before, and I’ll argue it again. It’s time to end the extraordinary discretion granted public officials at the onset of the pandemic. Apply conventional legal rules. In the absence of compelling, scientific evidence of a true risk to public health, religious liberty should prevail.

 

[lawai'a]

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/the-greatest-commandment-has-guided-my-politics.html

this is the opening and concluding section of the Biden Op-Ed published oct. 29 in The Christian Post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,’” he said. “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

These abiding principles – loving God and loving others – are at the very foundation of my faith. Throughout my career in public service, these values have kept me grounded in what matters most. As a husband, father, and grandfather, they are the cornerstone upon which our family is built. Through the pain of losing my wife, my daughter, and my son, they have sustained me with eternal hope. My faith has been a source of immeasurable solace in times of grief, and a daily inspiration to fight against the abuse of power in all its forms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don’t always have to agree on everything, but our country has to find a way to come together – to overcome the spirit of division and the hateful words that have defined too much of our public life for the last four years.

We all matter in the eyes of God, and it will take all of us to achieve the healing America so desperately needs. To follow God’s Greatest Commandment, and to love each other fully. Together, we can win the battle for the soul of our nation; navigate the multiple crises we face – ending this pandemic, driving our economic recovery, confronting systemic racism; address the scourge of poverty; pursue immigration and refugee policies that uphold the dignity of all; and do everything in our power to ensure that all God’s children have the hope and future they so rightfully deserve.

As Christians, I know there is much more that unites us than divides us. And as Americans, I know that there is nothing our country cannot achieve when we stand together – united.

 

[Lanny]

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/the-greatest-commandment-has-guided-my-politics.html

this is the opening and concluding section of the Biden Op-Ed published oct. 29 in The Christian Post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is asked, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,’” he said. “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

These abiding principles – loving God and loving others – are at the very foundation of my faith. Throughout my career in public service, these values have kept me grounded in what matters most. As a husband, father, and grandfather, they are the cornerstone upon which our family is built. Through the pain of losing my wife, my daughter, and my son, they have sustained me with eternal hope. My faith has been a source of immeasurable solace in times of grief, and a daily inspiration to fight against the abuse of power in all its forms.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don’t always have to agree on everything, but our country has to find a way to come together – to overcome the spirit of division and the hateful words that have defined too much of our public life for the last four years.

We all matter in the eyes of God, and it will take all of us to achieve the healing America so desperately needs. To follow God’s Greatest Commandment, and to love each other fully. Together, we can win the battle for the soul of our nation; navigate the multiple crises we face – ending this pandemic, driving our economic recovery, confronting systemic racism; address the scourge of poverty; pursue immigration and refugee policies that uphold the dignity of all; and do everything in our power to ensure that all God’s children have the hope and future they so rightfully deserve.

As Christians, I know there is much more that unites us than divides us. And as Americans, I know that there is nothing our country cannot achieve when we stand together – united.

Here's my favorite Bible passage:
Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

 

[lawai'a]

as always, david freench takes a reflective, honest look at his faith and the social issues regarding the politics that surround it.he concludes that there ought to be some introspection of self. the first link is the piece he sites as providing the quotes and the second data from the surveys to support his own conclusions. money quote:
No, I’m not talking primarily about Donald Trump. Support for the president is a symptom, not the disease. Instead, I’m talking about race, immigration, history, and the vast and growing gulf between white Evangelicals and the rest of the United States on issues that dominate so many American hearts.

https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/12/15/the-growing-divide-within-american-evangelicalism
https://s3.amazonaws.com/iasc-prod/uploads/pdf/sapch.pdf

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com...0.v-a4N56Rh5_ZdygxqGOVavj1bPpn40pYRQVC5stOjn4


If there is any good to come from last weekend’s Christian-nationalist “Jericho March,” and other bizarre, angry, and sometimes-violent right-wing attacks on the 2020 presidential election, it’s that the scales may start to fall from the eyes of thoughtful American Evangelicals. We will see the truth, and we’ll learn that the story we tell ourselves about our own alienation from American culture is fundamentally wrong in many material respects.

In short, contrary to popular conservative Christian belief, Evangelicals are not just facing resistance for their righteousness: They are also reaping what they’ve sown with their own commitment to partisan politics and to sometimes unjust and even malicious policies that have no grounding in biblical ethics.

There is no question that many millions of theologically conservative Christians feel like they’re increasingly under cultural siege, loathed and despised by the broader secular culture. The anger raises a critical question: Why?

Here’s the common Christian answer, the one that’s conventional wisdom in most conservative churches: “Just as Jesus and the apostles promised, the world hates us because of our faith. We reject the world’s libertine sexual ethics and commitment to abortion, and thus the world rejects us.”

There is truth in this statement. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, time and again. During a two-decade litigation career, I represented Christian groups tossed off campuses for their defense of traditional biblical sexual ethics. I represented Christian students and groups at schools from coast to coast who faced censorship for advancing pro-life views. I advised Christian institutions who faced threats to their existence and independence for requiring that employees and/or students believe and uphold orthodox statements of faith.
I can tell story after story of astonishing intolerance and even outright hatred displayed against good and faithful men and women who merely sought the right to speak, the right to meet, to sing, and to pray. Elements of the illiberal left have been and still are threatening and cruel to even the best Christian folks. No amount of winsomeness or kindness or civility could save those Christians from relentless attacks.

These cases were both alarming and comforting for conservative Christians. They were alarming for obvious reasons. No one wants to face threats to their liberty and livelihoods because of the free exercise of their faith. Yet the attacks were comforting because these are exactly the kinds of secular attacks Christians are taught to expect. After all, in John 15, Jesus told his disciples: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”

But there’s also a less comforting—and also quite true—answer to the question, “Why do they hate us?” There is a growing cultural divide between white Evangelical America and much of the rest of the nation that has nothing to do with Christian faithfulness.

No, I’m not talking primarily about Donald Trump. Support for the president is a symptom, not the disease. Instead, I’m talking about race, immigration, history, and the vast and growing gulf between white Evangelicals and the rest of the United States on issues that dominate so many American hearts.

Last month, the University of Virginia’s Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture published a report called Democracy in Dark Times that was designed to take a deeper look at the different beliefs and motivations of red and blue America. Its findings regarding white Evangelicals were startling. Evangelicals, it said, were emerging as the “cultural other”:
The cultural other is an individual or, more than likely, an entire group, whose beliefs and practices place them outside of “normal” or “acceptable” society. Their way of thinking and of life offends the sensibilities and ideals of the dominant group, and in this sense, they are stigmatized in the extreme. As such, the cultural other is regarded as not just outside of the in-group, but so far outside that their very presence represents a profound ethical violation that might even be experienced as repugnant to those who are not part of it. This would now seem to be how many people outside of Evangelicalism have come to think about the modern-day Evangelical movement and those who comprise it.

The authors—James Davison Hunter, Carl Desportes Bowman, and Kyle Puetz—recognize that theological and philosophical differences explain part of the divide, but so does politics:

On theological and philosophical grounds alone, Evangelicalism today finds itself outside of the mainstream of the contemporary world. But the more political power the Evangelical movement has sought to wield, and the more the Evangelical movement has aligned itself with the politics and practices of the political Right, the more its reputation has been diminished.

So far, many conservative Evangelicals would nod along. “Tell us something we don’t know,” they’d say. “We’re remaining biblically faithful in an increasingly unfaithful world. Of course secular America won’t like us.”

But wait. What does the data say regarding America’s widest gaps? Where is the gap between white Evangelicals and the rest of America particularly acute? On matters of race:
The widest divisions in America are, in fact, between White Evangelicals and the African American community as a whole. It is a racial chasm, to be sure, but one intensified and deepened by the particular character of conservative White Evangelicalism—a chasm not mirrored between Black Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals. This division is seen most sharply on those issues that specifically bear on African Americans and Hispanics as well.

The numbers are just immense. Moreover, concerns about racism are no mere side issue, in the survey, they represented the top political concern of progressive partisans.


When you drill down into the numbers, the gaps can sometimes be astonishing. For example:


Here’s another example:

Almost universally, Blacks (91%) believe that “the police and law enforcement unfairly target racial and ethnic minorities.” (This figure is up from 83 percent in 2016.) The majority of Hispanics (60%) and White non-Evangelicals (57%) today share this opinion. By contrast, the percentage of Blacks who hold this view is more than five times the percentage of White Evangelicals (17%); 83 percent of the latter disagree, with 41 percent disagreeing strongly.

When you drill down into the numbers, the gaps can sometimes be astonishing. For example:
And another:

There is the question of what to do about the legacy of slavery and of racism in America. One proposal that has been debated for a number of years is the idea of reparations—some kind of “financial compensation to African Americans for their historic mistreatment by White Americans.” The racial divide over this issue is staggering. Nearly eight of 10 African Americans (78%) are in favor of reparations, compared to 41 percent of all Hispanics and 34 percent of all non-Evangelical Whites. White Evangelicals as a group, however, stand far outside of this consensus, with only 7 percent in favor of this idea.

And another:


But wait. You might object that it’s unfair to compare White Evangelicals with populations of people who don’t share their theological beliefs. After all, if theology is relevant to policy, then perhaps we should compare groups who share the same theology but not the same race—white Evangelicals and non-white Evangelicals. Do white and non-white Evangelicals see the world the same way? Here’s what the study concluded:
A community of religiously committed Evangelicals holds a common faith that operates at the center of their lives and, as such, it provides a common culture that they share—one that, in principle, transcends politics, economics, and other matters of this world. Does this actually hold true? Not remotely.

It turns out that non-white Evangelicals are much closer to their more secular fellow citizens in their perceptions of race problems in the United States. Non-white Evangelicals are also “twice as likely as White Evangelicals to say that inequality and poverty are a very or extremely serious threat to the country.”

Earlier this month Ryan Burge published an important piece noting the large gap between “Evangelical elites” and the “the millions of white evangelicals who occupy pews on a typical Sunday morning all over the United States.” Burge writes:

Just over the weekend, popular Bible teacher Beth Moore tweeted, “I have never seen anything in these United States of America I found more astonishingly seductive & dangerous to the saints of God than Trumpism”.

And it’s likely to have no impact on the political behavior of white evangelicals. The same people who will buy tens of thousands of copies of Beth Moore’s new Bible study and will pack arenas to the rafters to hear her teach about the Scriptures are ignoring her admonitions and moving further and further to the right every day, in outright defiance of the invocations of those that they say they follow.

But Beth Moore is just the most recent in a long line of evangelical leaders trying to right the ship.

He walks through multiple examples. Even though multiple conservative Christian leaders condemned family separation, the policy was more popular with white Evangelicals than with any other American religious group.

While powerful Christian organizations like World Vision condemn the Trump administration’s dramatic reductions in refugee caps, white Evangelicals were most likely to support reducing even legal immigration by 50 percent:


And if you think these attitudes are merely ancillary to American Evangelicals—side issues that shouldn’t distract from the main issue, abortion—then think again. In an August post, Burge found that “white evangelical Republican support for Donald Trump is based more on immigration policy than his view of abortion.” Both abortion and immigration mattered to Evangelicals. Immigration mattered more.
What is going on? Yes, there is some outright racism in the church. But we’re also seeing evidence of the Christian nationalism that has emerged more explicitly in the age of Trump, and Christian nationalism—because it is rooted so deeply in reverence for a particular version of the American story—will always minimize America’s historic sins and the present legacy (and reality) of American racism.

Christian nationalism will also always be alert to cultural change of all kinds (not just the sexual revolution), in part because “American culture” and “Christian culture” are experienced by all too many white Protestants as inseparable. You see signs of this in the conservative branding many of the more-religious sectors of American society (especially the rural and exurban centers of Republican power) as “real America” while huge swaths of American society, from its urban centers to its universities to many of its most successful corporations, are branded as less than fully authentic.

Moreover, in attitudes about the American founding, the American police, and the American military, you can see a defense of this nation and (some) of its institutions that runs deeper than in other American communities.

Again, it’s worth emphasizing that many white Evangelical political positions—on matters of immense importance to many millions of Americans—do not flow naturally from Evangelical biblical orthodoxy. There isn’t a straight line from scripture to severe immigration restrictions, for example, or from scripture to confidence in American police. Instead the political gaps between white Evangelicals and the rest of America flow from a series of historical, cultural, and ideological commitments that are contestable at best and unjust at worst.Christians should defend religious liberty. They should defend life. But they should not even begin to presume that their ongoing “othering” in American society is a product of their virtue. Sometimes the world rejects Christians because it rejects Christ. Sometimes, however, the world rejects Christians because Christians are cruel. In that case, alienation isn’t persecution. It represents righteous judgment for our own political sin.

 

[Lanny]

I've really come to appreciate David French's pieces. He's a Conservative Christian writer. But, get this, he does NOT like Trump, so we can nip that in the bud right away.

Anywho, I'm sure many of you will blow this off, but I do think he makes some very good overall points. I feel he's very fair and balanced, while still being a Christian.

It was e-mailed to me, so I'll just paste the entire article here:

Christians, Gun Rights, and the American Social Compact
Kyle Rittenhouse and the deadly wages of recklessness.

David French
Sep 6



I’m going to begin with my two favorite quotes from two American founders—the two quotes that I believe set up the fundamental nature of the American social compact. The first is the most famous. It’s Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

He didn’t stop there, however. The very next words are key: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The meaning is clear. Each and every human being possesses God-given rights, and a fundamental purpose of government is to protect those rights. That’s the government’s side of the social compact, and these aspirational words were operationalized in the Bill of Rights. The Declaration is the American mission statement. The Constitution made it law.

But there’s another side to the American social compact. We know the obligation of the government, but what about the obligation of the citizen? Here’s where we turn to Thomas Jefferson’s rival, John Adams. And Adams gives us the second quote that frames our constitutional republic. Writing to the Massachusetts militia, he says, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

But that’s not all he said. In a less-famous section, he wrote, “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” Our government wasn’t built to force men to be moral. Instead, it depends on man’s morality for the system to work.

Thus, the American social compact—the government recognizes and defends fundamental individual liberty, and the individual then exercises that liberty virtuously, for virtuous purposes. Or, to kinda-sorta paraphrase Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, with great liberty comes great responsibility.

That brings me to American gun rights and to Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who killed two people and wounded one during a series of encounters with protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Let me be clear: I’m not going to use this newsletter to adjudicate his case. The investigation is ongoing, and there is both evidence that he acted in self-defense during the fatal encounters, and evidence he threatened at least one innocent individual prior to the encounters by pointing his weapon at him without justification. There is still much we don’t know.

But here are some things we do know. By arming himself and wading into a riot, Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and recklessly. I agree completely with Tim Carney’s assessment here:

The 17-year-old charged with two homicides in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was not a hero vigilante, nor was he a predatory white supremacist. He was, the evidence suggests, a foolish boy whose foolish decisions have taken two lives and ruined his own.

If you go armed with a rifle to police a violent protest, you are behaving recklessly. The bad consequences stemming from that decision are at least partly your fault.

Moreover, when Christians celebrate or even merely rationalize his actions they are also behaving irresponsibly and recklessly. Even if Rittenhouse is legally vindicated, his decision to exercise a right resulted in a grave wrong.

Why would I say that Christians are celebrating Rittenhouse? For one thing, a Christian crowdfunding site has raised more than $450,000 for his legal defense. Christian writers have called him a “good Samaritan” and argued that he’s a “decent, idealistic kid who entered that situation with the desire to do good, and, in fact, did do good.” (Emphasis added.)

Rittenhouse’s case comes on the heels of the Republican decision to showcase Mark and Patricia McCloskey at the Republican National Convention, the St. Louis couple that has been criminally charged for brandishing weapons at Black Lives Matter protesters who were marching outside their home.

The McCloskeys are obviously entitled to a legal defense, and I am not opining on the legal merits of their case (again, there is much we don’t know), but as a gun-owner, I cringed at their actions. They weren’t heroic. They were reckless. Pointing a weapon at another human being is a gravely serious act. It’s inherently dangerous, and if done unlawfully it often triggers in its targets an immediate right of violent (and potentially deadly) self-defense.

At the same time, we’re seeing an increasing number of openly-armed, rifle-toting conservative vigilantes not just aggressively confronting far-left crowds in the streets, but also using their weapons to intimidate lawmakers into canceling a legislative session.

In other words, we are watching gun-owners, sometimes cheered on by Christian conservatives, breaking the social compact. They aren’t exercising their rights responsibly, they’re pushing them to the (sometimes literally) bleeding edge, pouring gasoline on a civic fire, and creating real fear in their fellow citizens.

This is exactly when a healthy conservative Christian community rises up and quite simply says, “No.” With one voice it condemns vigilantism and models civic responsibility.

Defend due process for Rittenhouse and the McCloskeys, yes, but do not celebrate, rationalize, or excuse those who go openly armed into the public square—as vigilantes or as protesters. Americans enjoy greater rights to possess or carry weapons than any time in the modern history of the United States, yet exercising those rights can be terrifying to friends and neighbors unless they’re exercised responsibly and respectfully.

Or, to put it another way, absent an imminent, immediate threat to liberty, the focus of Christian gun owners should be on their responsibilities, not their rights.

In fact, that focus extends well beyond the Second Amendment. It’s a general principle applicable to every exercise of individual or collective liberty. While it’s entirely justifiable for Christian churches to challenge discriminatory pandemic regulations that favor secular mass gatherings over religious worship (such as Nevada’s preferential treatment of casinos), it’s not justifiable for churches to engage in reckless conduct as they defend their freedom.

To take one prominent example, pastor John MacArthur is entirely within his rights to challenge California’s pandemic restrictions on religious worship. But when he does so through also encouraging defiance of regulations and norms on social distancing and masking, he’s reckless. He’s endangering the health and lives of not just his congregants, but also of members of the public who encounter his congregants. In fact, MacArthur is quite proud that his congregation hasn’t distanced and doesn’t wear masks:



No one can argue that MacArthur isn’t religious, but this is certainly not moral. He’s breaking the social compact.

Regular readers of this newsletter know that I’m somewhat obsessed with a rather simple question—is there such thing as a distinctive Christian presence in American political culture apart from Christian advocacy of specific issues? Or does the entirety of, for example, the conservative Christian presence in Republican politics boil down to the defense of specific liberties and the quest to overturn Roe?

The distinctive Christian presence has to include modeling the responsible, virtuous exercise of the rights its political movements seek to secure. It has to include using its voice and power to advocate for that responsibility and to oppose recklessness. Simply put, the republic was not designed to thrive if those who are religious are not also moral.

Thankfully, countless Christian gun-owners are upholding the social compact. They focus on their responsibilities, and they do not recklessly seek out conflict. Indeed, the best evidence indicates that concealed-carry permit holders are more law-abiding than the police. Countless Christian congregants and pastors are also upholding the social compact in the midst of the pandemic. They’ve show incredible patience in abiding by even facially-unfair pandemic regulations, and they’ve gone above and beyond in their quest to protect the health of their friends and neighbors.

It’s worth asking whether this actual moral majority is the true face of American Christian politics, however, or whether their passivity has allowed different voices to dominate. It’s not enough to be individually responsible. It’s important to be corporately and publicly prudent, including by condemning the actions of those who are not. America’s Evangelicals are the most powerful faction in what is (for now) the world’s most powerful political party. If they permit irresponsible actors to become the face of American liberty, they undermine the very freedoms they seek to save.

Being a real Christian is a good and beautiful thing.
These days there are many people who pass themselves off as Christians who do not lead Christian lives nor do they espouse
Christian beliefs. My favorite example of a true Christian is the Pope while Jimmy Carter also comes to mind.

 

[tlongII]

Christianity is a fraudulent religion. Of course all religions are fraudulent so what you gonna do?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Christianity is a fraudulent religion. Of course all religions are fraudulent so what you gonna do?

Join mine.

 

[ABM]

Join mine.

Which reminds me......

The definition of an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac is.....

Someone who lays awake at night....wondering if there really is a dog.

 

[julius]

Which reminds me......

The definition of an agnostic, dyslexic insomniac is.....

Someone who lays awake at night....wondering if there really is a dog.

it reminds you of a joke you already made in this thread?

 

[ABM]

it reminds you of a joke you already made in this thread?

Awww...so touching. I forgot everyone reads every post in this forum. My bad.

 

[julius]

Awww...so touching. I forgot everyone reads every post in this forum. My bad.

Or, I don't know, it could be that I skimmed through the thread because I thought it was new, and noticed you made the joke. chuckled, and moved on. Then saw that you made the same joke and thought "wtf? I just read that" and scrolled up again and saw that you had repeated a joke.

It's one thing to repeat someone elses joke, but to repeat your own joke? That takes talent.

 

[ABM]

as always, david freench takes a reflective, honest look at his faith and the social issues regarding the politics that surround it.he concludes that there ought to be some introspection of self. the first link is the piece he sites as providing the quotes and the second data from the surveys to support his own conclusions. money quote:
No, I’m not talking primarily about Donald Trump. Support for the president is a symptom, not the disease. Instead, I’m talking about race, immigration, history, and the vast and growing gulf between white Evangelicals and the rest of the United States on issues that dominate so many American hearts....

I listen to Michael Brown quite a bit. He has some interesting takes, as well...

https://www.lightsource.com/ministr...e-danger-of-christian-nationalism-859667.html