Will the Christianity Today Editorial Influence the 2020 GE?

[Arkansas Yankee]

NO!

[SingingAnalyst]

I feel I must throw in my two cents again. While I understand the pessimism of many in the Forum and on this thread, in this age of seemingly almost perfectly bifurcated sets of political views, I think a couple of points must be made:

1. I used to identify as Evangelical. I no longer do (though I still identify as Christian and accept Jesus as my Savior), but I must emphatically disagree with the claim that "all" (or "most" or even "many") white (there, I said it) Evangelicals worship Trump, or consider him a cult leader, or a prophet, or on a level with Jesus. Most of the talk of this nature is coming from the Left, and it tends to "hang" the conversation and make any real dialogue impossible, and in fact I think talk of this nature helps Trump, by making those who are (1) on the fence or (2) leaning slightly against Trump, more sympathetic toward Trump and his supporters, as someone just smeared all of them as irrational sycophantic apocalyptic jerks. So, for those who want to see a Democrat win in 2020, I consider it a poor strategy.

2. Affecting an election requires changing the minds of only a few people. In 2000, a mere 269 vote switches in FL would have done it. In 2016, mere tens of thousands in MI-PA-WI would have done it. Even if the editorial changes the minds of only 0.5% of voters, (and this is one of the rare cases in which I think no one is now more likely to vote Trump because of the editorial), that's enough to flip MI-PA-WI and the election.

So, yes, I think it will have an impact on the 2020 GE. Also, I think the perception of organized Christianity as a bunch of right-wing hacks will decline slightly.

[Fuzzy Bear]

On the one hand, there's the Christianity Today position . . .

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

. . . and there's Erick Erickson's position.

There are no good alternatives. The Democrats may be more palatable in demeanor, but not mean tweeting doesn’t make them less morally flawed or immoral. I refused to vote for Trump in 2016, had people show up at my house to threaten me and my family, and I held my ground. I said character counted, but 120 million Americans disagreed. I’m not going to sit out 2020 and between the two major parties, I’ll go with the braying jackasses most closely aligned with my values than the braying jackasses furthest from my values. I still believe character counts, but none of them have it and it’s not in my nature to just sit it out. So I’ll go with deficient character with the political platform most closely aligned to mine. I’d go third party, but I did that in 2016 and that guy has been embarrassing me ever since. And again, as much as I have issues with the President, he has done a lot of good and still has surrounding him scores of really good, highly competent people of very good character.

But honestly, the whole sordid thing is gross and I long for a President I can point my kids to and tell them that’s a role model. I’m really ready for 2024.

I don’t really disagree with what Christianity Today said about witness and character and the church. I don’t think this impeachment was appropriate or an appropriate vehicle to remove the President. But I am glad they said what they said and didn’t compromise. They’re also right that evangelicals willing to defend everything this President does are harming evangelicalism in the United States. Too many self-described Christians seem to be looking to the White House instead of Heaven. No, we’re not electing a pastor in chief, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse his behavior or bite our tongue because he’s on our team. Frankly, a whole lot of Christians seem so transactional with the President that they give me the impression they’re perfectly fine if he goes to Hell so long as they get a few good judges and regulations out of it.

I give Christianity Today props for consistency.  They were wrong on impeachment in 1998, and they're wrong now, but they're not wrong at all in the reasons behind their arguments.  They are not wrong in being concerned for the witness Christians give when they wed their theology to their defense of Trump and all he says and does.  It is one thing to point out that Trump has been (from an Evangelical perspective) right on public policy, but it is quite another to suggest that Trump's election is indispensable to the cause of Christ (or even America, for that matter).  Skeptics and Christians alike are confused to the degree that Christians defend all of Trump, and do so in theological terms.  (Indeed, one of the most prominent examples of this is the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the founder of Christianity Today.)  It's even more outrageous to suggest that Trump is a Christian.  If he is, he is a baby Christian in need of a real Pastor whose main focus is the salvation of souls and not some mythical place at the public policy table.  (And, no, I do not consider Paula White to fill that bill.) 

In terms of impeachment, my position is simple:  The articles of impeachment do not rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, and/or Misdemeanors.  Trump should not be removed from office because he does not meet the Constitutional standard.  Had the articles of impeachment been ones of Bribery and Obstruction of Justice, that would be different, but they are not that.  If Trump bribed Ukraine, shame of the House Judiciary Committee for not saying so.  And Obstruction of CONGRESS is a joke; it's a bogus article inserted because they could not rightfully allege Obstruction of JUSTICE (which would be a High Crime).  The President has every right to assert Executive Privilege, and the arbiter of such differences between the President and the Congress is the Courts.  That the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee chose not to go to Court on this issue, when they were free to do so, constitutes a concession to Trump that he had every right to do what he did.  They talk much about "the process", but they opted to not use the process to resolve that dispute that the Constitution designates, that process being the seeking of relief through the Courts.

None of this, however, is to say that there is no basis in all that has come forth for a voter to say, "I'm not going to vote for Trump in 2020."  For many, there are compelling reasons not to.  I have, however, chosen to go Erickson's route; neither side has character, but Trump is, indeed, the "braying jackass" most closely aligned with my own values.  And Erickson's assessment of Trump as President isn't wrong:  "He’s a deeply flawed, immoral politician who has both surprising managed to keep many of his campaign promises and not squander the lives of our soldiers and sailors for righteous causes that lose their purpose."  (Ironically, that's something I could say about BILL Clinton as well, for the most part.)

Erickson's bottom line is correct.  People (Christians, especially) have to muddle through this issue the best that they can.  I don't fault anyone for not voting for Trump, but I'm certainly not going to condemn someone who does, and I would vote for Trump today if this were Election Day.  I do believe that most Christians see the issue as Erickson does, and I don't expect Christianity Today to have much of an effect on anyone's vote.  I do hope that Christians take heed as to who they represent when the Evangelize; but Christianity Today and Erickson are right about that.  The only thing I will say to that is that as far as VOTING goes, no Christian (at this point) need apologize for voting for Trump given the un-Godly policies advocated by the Democratic Party, particularly on abortion and social issues.  Christians should be repulsed by Trump's worst behaviors, but they should be equally repulsed by the policies on social issues Warren, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, et al would implement if elected.

[SingingAnalyst]

On the one hand, there's the Christianity Today position . . .

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

. . . and there's Erick Erickson's position.

There are no good alternatives. The Democrats may be more palatable in demeanor, but not mean tweeting doesn’t make them less morally flawed or immoral. I refused to vote for Trump in 2016, had people show up at my house to threaten me and my family, and I held my ground. I said character counted, but 120 million Americans disagreed. I’m not going to sit out 2020 and between the two major parties, I’ll go with the braying jackasses most closely aligned with my values than the braying jackasses furthest from my values. I still believe character counts, but none of them have it and it’s not in my nature to just sit it out. So I’ll go with deficient character with the political platform most closely aligned to mine. I’d go third party, but I did that in 2016 and that guy has been embarrassing me ever since. And again, as much as I have issues with the President, he has done a lot of good and still has surrounding him scores of really good, highly competent people of very good character.

But honestly, the whole sordid thing is gross and I long for a President I can point my kids to and tell them that’s a role model. I’m really ready for 2024.

I don’t really disagree with what Christianity Today said about witness and character and the church. I don’t think this impeachment was appropriate or an appropriate vehicle to remove the President. But I am glad they said what they said and didn’t compromise. They’re also right that evangelicals willing to defend everything this President does are harming evangelicalism in the United States. Too many self-described Christians seem to be looking to the White House instead of Heaven. No, we’re not electing a pastor in chief, but that doesn’t mean we should excuse his behavior or bite our tongue because he’s on our team. Frankly, a whole lot of Christians seem so transactional with the President that they give me the impression they’re perfectly fine if he goes to Hell so long as they get a few good judges and regulations out of it.

I give Christianity Today props for consistency.  They were wrong on impeachment in 1998, and they're wrong now, but they're not wrong at all in the reasons behind their arguments.  They are not wrong in being concerned for the witness Christians give when they wed their theology to their defense of Trump and all he says and does.  It is one thing to point out that Trump has been (from an Evangelical perspective) right on public policy, but it is quite another to suggest that Trump's election is indispensable to the cause of Christ (or even America, for that matter).  Skeptics and Christians alike are confused to the degree that Christians defend all of Trump, and do so in theological terms.  (Indeed, one of the most prominent examples of this is the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of the founder of Christianity Today.)  It's even more outrageous to suggest that Trump is a Christian.  If he is, he is a baby Christian in need of a real Pastor whose main focus is the salvation of souls and not some mythical place at the public policy table.  (And, no, I do not consider Paula White to fill that bill.) 

In terms of impeachment, my position is simple:  The articles of impeachment do not rise to the level of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, and/or Misdemeanors.  Trump should not be removed from office because he does not meet the Constitutional standard.  Had the articles of impeachment been ones of Bribery and Obstruction of Justice, that would be different, but they are not that.  If Trump bribed Ukraine, shame of the House Judiciary Committee for not saying so.  And Obstruction of CONGRESS is a joke; it's a bogus article inserted because they could not rightfully allege Obstruction of JUSTICE (which would be a High Crime).  The President has every right to assert Executive Privilege, and the arbiter of such differences between the President and the Congress is the Courts.  That the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee chose not to go to Court on this issue, when they were free to do so, constitutes a concession to Trump that he had every right to do what he did.  They talk much about "the process", but they opted to not use the process to resolve that dispute that the Constitution designates, that process being the seeking of relief through the Courts.

None of this, however, is to say that there is no basis in all that has come forth for a voter to say, "I'm not going to vote for Trump in 2020."  For many, there are compelling reasons not to.  I have, however, chosen to go Erickson's route; neither side has character, but Trump is, indeed, the "braying jackass" most closely aligned with my own values.  And Erickson's assessment of Trump as President isn't wrong:  "He’s a deeply flawed, immoral politician who has both surprising managed to keep many of his campaign promises and not squander the lives of our soldiers and sailors for righteous causes that lose their purpose."  (Ironically, that's something I could say about BILL Clinton as well, for the most part.)

Erickson's bottom line is correct.  People (Christians, especially) have to muddle through this issue the best that they can.  I don't fault anyone for not voting for Trump, but I'm certainly not going to condemn someone who does, and I would vote for Trump today if this were Election Day.  I do believe that most Christians see the issue as Erickson does, and I don't expect Christianity Today to have much of an effect on anyone's vote.  I do hope that Christians take heed as to who they represent when the Evangelize; but Christianity Today and Erickson are right about that.  The only thing I will say to that is that as far as VOTING goes, no Christian (at this point) need apologize for voting for Trump given the un-Godly policies advocated by the Democratic Party, particularly on abortion and social issues.  Christians should be repulsed by Trump's worst behaviors, but they should be equally repulsed by the policies on social issues Warren, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, et al would implement if elected.

Fuzzy Bear, I think you know I admire you very much. Despite years in Evangelical environments, I don't believe I am familiar with Erickson. However, I have been familiar with CT since the mid-1980s (I remember reading a CT editorial by Chuck Colson "We Aren't The World", in the midst of a national anti-hunger campaign with a similar name).

Reading Erickson's writing above, he seems to be as ambivalent as CT as per the virtues of voting for someone based on policy vs. character. To me, he could just as easily have come to the other conclusion (i.e., agreeing with CT).

I, for one, have never condemned anyone for voting as they did, even if I strenuously disagreed. The sheer intensity with which we have condemned each other, beginning in 2016, is unprecedented in my political lifetime. I am not sure that will change after 2020 regardless of who wins.

So Erickson and CT have a different opinion. I'm OK with that and I think the vast majority of Christians are too. Protestantism has long been divided between mainline and Evangelical branches (social gospel vs. saving souls) and Catholicism has been similarly divided (I find myself in the more "liberal" wing of Catholicism). Now Evangelicals appear to be divided, over Donald Trump of all people.

I too am concerned about a President's policies, executive orders, and judicial appointments. I am also concerned with Congress. The CT editorial has made the probability of a President Biden, a left-leaning VP, and a GOP House and Senate somewhat higher (though still relatively low). I, for one, will pray for Biden's health and good judgment every day if he becomes President.

[Frodo]

They're not backing down -good for them:

Christianity Today again slams Trump, raises issue of 'unconditional loyalty'

Christianity Today, the magazine founded by the late Reverend Billy Graham, renewed its criticism of President Donald Trump in a new editorial that cited his "misuses of power" and asked fellow Christians to examine their loyalty to him, days after a controversial editorial that called for his impeachment.

(…) But the magazine's president, Timothy Dalrymple, wrote in the editorial, headlined "The Flag in the Whirlwind," that evangelicals' embrace of Trump means being tied to his "rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees."

"With profound love and respect," Dalrymple said, "we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: their unconditional loyalty."

[McGarnagle]

I doubt it

[Fuzzy Bear]

They're not backing down -good for them:

Christianity Today again slams Trump, raises issue of 'unconditional loyalty'

Christianity Today, the magazine founded by the late Reverend Billy Graham, renewed its criticism of President Donald Trump in a new editorial that cited his "misuses of power" and asked fellow Christians to examine their loyalty to him, days after a controversial editorial that called for his impeachment.

(…) But the magazine's president, Timothy Dalrymple, wrote in the editorial, headlined "The Flag in the Whirlwind," that evangelicals' embrace of Trump means being tied to his "rampant immorality, greed, and corruption; his divisiveness and race-baiting; his cruelty and hostility to immigrants and refugees."

"With profound love and respect," Dalrymple said, "we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: their unconditional loyalty."

There are two sets of fair questions to ask, aside from the politics of impeachment and the questions of whether Trump committed impeachable offenses.  In this case, I view CT as wrong on both sides, but I give them SOME props for criticizing Trump's personal behavior. 

The CT article makes some valid points as to the effect supporting Trump has on Christian witness.  I certainly share this concern.  This article attempts to address this issue.

When it comes to America, I have no doubt that, to some extent, this is true. I’ve experienced it myself.

On the other hand, for every person I’ve interacted with who finds my vote for Trump objectionable, I’ve interacted with 10 (or, more likely, 50 or 100) who find my biblical values objectionable. In particular, this applies to my opposition to LGBT activism and, less so, to pro-life views.

So, while some people may not listen to our witness because we voted for Trump, even more people will not listen to us because of our moral convictions. That’s an obstacle we have to overcome.

That's America.  Then, there's the rest of the World:

I also asked this question on Facebook (where we have almost 600K followers, about half of them from outside the USA), as well as on Twitter (where we have 37K followers).

On Facebook, where only two polling choices can be given, I asked, “If you are a Christian living outside America or a missionary working overseas, would you say that evangelical support of Trump has hurt your witness?”

The results were overwhelming, with 83 percent saying No and only 17 percent saying Yes.

On Twitter, where I could offer four choices, the answers were (in descending order): Not at all (44 percent); Not sure (22 percent); Not an issue (19 percent); and Definitely (16 percent).

So, while the Twitter response was more nuanced, the overall results were similar.

In both polls, the overwhelming majority disagreed with CT’s statement that evangelical support for Trump has undercut the efforts of countless missionaries who labor in the far fields of the Lord.”

Consider the words some of these people are saying:

On Facebook, RJ wrote from Australia, “A Christian voting for the party of sexual immorality, infanticide, and Christophobia is a far worse witness!”

Lloyd wrote, “I am a full-time missionary to Mozambique, Africa. I have not had any issue of my witness being scrutinized for my support of our President. Being a missionary also allows me to be in the lives of people from all over the world and Trump has been a frequent topic. For the most part, people feel he has been treated unfairly and his policies are liked. I have spoken with people from India, Romania, Australia, France, the Caribbean, South Africa, and Brazil. God bless Dr. Brown.”

Muroslav opined, “Absolutely not, many Canadians support President Trump and would love to have [a] Man like TRUMP running things in Canada!”

From rural Nigeria, Joanne opined, “International politics is not on the minds of most of the people I interact with.”

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2019/12/24/a-response-to-the-editor-of-christianity-today-n2558477

The gist of the editorial -- and of most religious and conservative opposition to President Trump -- is that any good the president has done is dwarfed by his character defects.

This is an amoral view that says more about Galli than it does about the president. He and the people who share his opinion are making the following statement: No matter how much good this president does, it is less important than his character flaws.

Why is this wrong?

First, because it devalues policies that benefit millions of people.

And second, because it is a simplistic view of character.

I do not know how to assess a person's character -- including my own -- outside of how one's actions affect others. Since I agree with almost all of President Trump's actions as president and believe they have positively affected millions of people, I have to conclude that as president, Trump thus far has been a man of particularly good character.

Of course, if you think his policies have harmed millions of people, you will assess his character negatively. But that is not what never-Trump conservatives or Christians such as the Christianity Today editor-in-chief argue. They argue that his policies have indeed helped America (and even the world), but this fact is far less significant than his character.

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryprovost/2019/12/24/christianity-today-where-were-you-under-obama-n2558460

Instead of regurgitating George Soros style leftist talking points, that are increasingly targeted at the church, Christianity Today should see that Donald Trump is a friend to Christians. If I am ever in jail/fined/dismissed for my belief in Jesus Christ, which is an increasing possibility with more leftists elected to office, the one fallible human I want backing me, after my family, is Donald J. Trump.

These are bottom lines that should not be dismissed trivially.  Christians are faced with a choice between a candidate who advances their interests and whose policies reflect their  values, versus a candidate whose policies reflect advancement of a number of issue positions they could never accept as moral, and whose attitude toward Biblical Christians is one of active loathing.  I don't endorse all of Prager's and Provost's talking points here, but their bottom lines are not unsound.  And while my ultimate faith is in Christ, and Christ, alone, in circumstances of being honestly persecuted for the Faith, I believe that Donald Trump would yield himself to be a vessel for my liberation more readily than any Democrat running.  Indeed, I believe that a number of them (Warren and Castro, to be sure) would be instruments used to increase my torment.  Biblical Christians are not blinded to the fact that much of the left hates them, nor should they be.

[Frenchrepublican]

Obvious answer : NO

[SingingAnalyst]

Again, I think we need to consider

(1) that it takes just a few tens of thousands of votes (out of 140 million) to flip an election;

(2) that Evangelicals, even white Evangelicals, are not monolithically Republican, are not "poor, uneducated, and easy to command" (as a 1993 Washington Post article claimed), are far more culturally and politically sophisticated than many on this Forum realize, and will consider (or at least a significant minority will consider) the CT editorial;

(3) that no one in the country-- no, not one person-- is now more likely to vote for Trump because of the CT editorial; most of the time, when an opinion is expressed (like the Atlantic endorsing Hillary Clinton in 2016), it's a double edged sword ("those pro-Hillary elitists are at it again! Screw them!"). Not this time.

In other words, even if a net of only 1% of Evangelicals (0.2% of voters overall) changes their vote because of it, that may be all it takes to flip MI-PA-WI and the election.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

NO!

[NOVA Green]

Bump...

Politico posted an article a few days back about how Biden's outreach to White Catholics and White Evangelical Christians won him the election.

Elections are won and lost at the margins, and Team Biden was apparently able to deliver and carry the ball over the finish line for a touchdown sometime in the 4th Quarter of the Ball Game.

It wasn’t until Election Day, when returns showed counties across Michigan, Georgia and the industrial Midwest leaning toward Joe Biden due to a groundswell of religious support, that the Trump campaign realized it had a problem.

For months, President Donald Trump’s top aides and religious allies dismissed his softening support with white evangelicals and Catholic voters as a polling fluke — another media-spun narrative intended to frighten the incumbent Republican and his top donors. No president had ever done more for these demographics, they claimed, pointing to the unfettered access many conservative Christian groups had to the Trump administration and the influence they wielded over policy priorities and judicial nominees...Between 47 percent and 50 percent of Catholic voters supported Trump — a small decline from 2016, but enough to cost him the Rust Belt states that mattered most to his path to victory. Nationally, the president carried white Catholics by a 15-point margin, according to AP/VoteCast data, marking a significant decline from his 33-point margin of victory over Hillary Clinton four years ago.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/11/how-biden-swung-the-religious-vote-435954

[SingingAnalyst]

Bump...

Politico posted an article a few days back about how Biden's outreach to White Catholics and White Evangelical Christians won him the election.

Elections are won and lost at the margins, and Team Biden was apparently able to deliver and carry the ball over the finish line for a touchdown sometime in the 4th Quarter of the Ball Game.

It wasn’t until Election Day, when returns showed counties across Michigan, Georgia and the industrial Midwest leaning toward Joe Biden due to a groundswell of religious support, that the Trump campaign realized it had a problem.

For months, President Donald Trump’s top aides and religious allies dismissed his softening support with white evangelicals and Catholic voters as a polling fluke — another media-spun narrative intended to frighten the incumbent Republican and his top donors. No president had ever done more for these demographics, they claimed, pointing to the unfettered access many conservative Christian groups had to the Trump administration and the influence they wielded over policy priorities and judicial nominees...Between 47 percent and 50 percent of Catholic voters supported Trump — a small decline from 2016, but enough to cost him the Rust Belt states that mattered most to his path to victory. Nationally, the president carried white Catholics by a 15-point margin, according to AP/VoteCast data, marking a significant decline from his 33-point margin of victory over Hillary Clinton four years ago.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/11/how-biden-swung-the-religious-vote-435954

Well... Ottawa County, MI which is home to many Christian Reformed believers who have fled Kent County, and which was the 4th most Republican county in the nation in 1976, gave Trump fractionally less than 60% of the vote, less than across much of Michigan outside the greater Detroit area.

A similar thing happened in Greenville County, SC, home of fundamentalist Bob Jones University: Trump received just 58% in 2020, comparable to Bush in 1992 or Reagan in 1980 but less than any Republican since.

I say it had an effect, albeit a small one, and perhaps not as much as other factors.