A respected high school friend posted on Facebook an article entitled “Letter to an Anti-Trump Christian Friend”, by Wayne Grudem, published on the website Townhall on August 8, 2020. He shared the article to give an insight into evangelical support for Trump.
Having never heard of Dr. Grudem before, I had to do some research into his background before I could effectively analyze his arguments. Where did he come from, how was he educated, what are his areas of expertise and what could I find out about his attitudes, biases and positions from his published works and activities? He clearly was taking the opportunity in this letter to tout his previously published works: Politics According to the Bible, The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution, Business for the Glory of God, and Christian Ethics.
I did not read read any of these books, but read synopses of and excerpts from many of them and various reviews by readers, as well as several other articles on politics that he had written. The reader reviews came in large part from like-minded readers. Business for the Glory of God, would not necessarily appeal to the average secular business student or businessman, for example, but his book on politics seemed to draw a more diverse readership and a wider range of comments. I emerged with some sense of his content, interest and style. His conservative and specifically Republican political leanings were quite evident to both his fans and his critics and to me within the excerpts that I read.
He was born in 1948 in Wisconsin and was educated at Harvard, Westminster Theological Seminary and has a Ph.D from the University of Cambridge. He has written more books than mentioned previously and has been a professor at a seminary. He could not have accomplished all that he did without intellectual capacity and a strong work ethic. Much could and should be expected from a scholar with his credentials.
He’s a midwesterner of a similar age to myself; we both experienced the powerful currents of history occurring in our lifetimes from approximately the same vantage point of life, but undoubtedly there were different influences that brought us to very different outlooks on politics now.
One of the first clues into the paths of his thinking and how it diverges from mine and where I could see the shape of his thoughts was when he cited Phyllis Schlafly and her book A Choice, Not an Echo, as an initial and important influence on his political thinking at a young age. Here I could relate, because she influenced my thinking as well. Her conservative point of view and specific areas of emphasis resonated with him. It seems likely that her influence also lead him towards or helped confirm his interest in Complimentarianism and Biblical manhood and womanhood, both topics that he is associated with.
Following the civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s and the growing recognition that equal rights had been denied to or limited for not only Black citizens but also for women and other marginalized groups; the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by the Senate and sent to the states for ratification. Schlafly’s active opposition helped prevent its ratification. I found her stance to be both baffling and maddening.
It struck me then and still strikes me as arrogance to attempt to impose personal beliefs of limitations on an entire subset of humanity who do not necessarily share those beliefs or benefit from their application. If you personally wish to live according to a religious interpretation of the equal worth but complimentary roles of men and women in marriage and ministry, (complimentarianism in a nutshell) that is your right, especially in the US where the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) protects religious practice.
However, to me, whenever you are establishing relationships where one member is given leadership and the other member is required to be submissive; the potential for abuse exists. We have seen examples throughout history in many cultures, writ both large and small—inculcated in law and tradition, generally along lines of race, gender and class.
The separation of genders as seen by Dr. Grudem and Mrs. Schlafly may work well for them and others that share their beliefs and in that I find no cause for concern with their choices. If Dr. Grudem and his wife both willingly followed traditional gender roles in their marriage, it has apparently worked for them; 51 years together sounds like a success story.
My concern comes when confidence in your own personal beliefs, even when derived from Biblical sources translates into confidence that they are unerringly right and required for everyone else, or the questioning of those beliefs is beyond scrutiny by others and that a re-examination of those beliefs is ever warranted, despite new facts, evidence or widespread concerns from others.
The Bible was used to justify slavery in the US and the arguments of the southern churches to uphold the enslavement of our fellow human beings led to a break between southern and northern congregations that predated the Civil War by several decades.
The Confederacy was clearly founded on the false, but fondly and firmly held principle of the inferiority of the Negro, as outlined in the famous Cornerstone Speech given by the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens in March of 1861.
“…Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
I may seem to be painting beliefs on a very dark and dangerous canvas, but it is not an indictment of the concept of beliefs.
In a vast and complex world full of uncertainty and unanswered questions I regard our belief systems as necessary elements to conducting the business of life as individuals and as societies, but I also know that truth is not a necessary element for a belief to hold a powerful sway, as clearly revealed by Stephens’ statement. There is no scientific basis for the superiority of any race, because the concept of race is an artificial concept and we are all members of the same species and the same human race.
We should be able to examine the beliefs of the past and the beliefs of our institutions as potentially fallible and even potentially destructive— such as the beliefs that formed the Confederacy and sustained slavery for hundreds of years and continued the subjugation of Blacks through Jim Crow laws, housing discrimination and social stigmatization. Even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the beliefs of too many influenced the uneven enforcement of laws, provisions of education and employment and maintained the social structures that have kept the Black community from full participation in our democracy and our free enterprise system. Our beliefs allow us to blame the victims and excuse those who try to maintain the unfair status quo.
The Church (as a power institution, regardless of the denomination) has also used beliefs to coerce followers for good or ill. Many Christians lead lives of virtue and kindness shaped by their beliefs and the fellowship of their congregations, but that is not the only result. The mass deaths in Jonestown would not have occurred without the power of belief and the force of a charismatic leader.
The child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church happened because the institution was valued more than the individuals who were harmed. They were collateral damage and not even considered. Eventually this failure to deal with the “insignificant” and occasional cultural and moral shortcomings of an institution with many strengths otherwise came to profoundly damage the very institution they were trying to protect.
A similar scenario has occurred with sports teams on college campuses. Who was more revered than Penn State’s head football coach, Joe Paterno? Revered, but only until the sex scandals of many years were revealed. The coaching staff defended the reputation of the University in ways that superseded the need to defend their athletes from abuse. It ended with Jerry Sandusky’s imprisonment, loss of jobs and prestige and Joe Paterno’s record as the winningest coach stripped from him. (It was later restored, but not until 3 years after his death.)
The protectors of the institutions (the bishops, the coaches, the administrators, etc.) were acting in ways that they thought were righteous and appropriate when viewed through their frame of reference. When a light was shone on the abuses and the doors were opened, the structures fell apart and some of the participants were able to recognize the wrongness of their actions, but some who participated were still unable to acknowledge that, still clinging to their firm beliefs in the ascendency of their institutions and the rightness of their actions, still able to minimize in their minds the damage they had done.
After all this background thoughts on beliefs and institutions, where am I now in my understanding of Dr. Grudem’s beliefs and principles? I do not share them in total and I have not shared them for a long time. Phyllis Schlafly broke us up! But can I accept that his support for Donald Trump is based on valid principles and sound reasoning? Can I willingly accept the fact that he views the world through a different frame of reference than I do, but that his frame is just different and not wrong or built on a faulty basis?
With that in mind, I still can’t simply dismiss this as a mere difference of equally valid opinions. He gave a political opinion and entered it into the public arena and he used his religious views and scholastic status to support a particular stance that I feel is dangerous to our health, safety and democratic future.
Policy preferences and leadership preferences will arise from our different understandings; but policy decisions can be guided by facts and previous results. The important things are the results that will occur and the cost effectiveness of those actions. They should not be solely dependent only upon our partisan preferences but upon the greatest good for the greatest number without disenfranchising or placing an unfair burdens on individuals. Long term benefits should be assessed, not only short term gains. The wishes of the powerful and the majority should not be heard any louder than the needs of the powerless and minority. Policymakers should enter into policymaking with a willingness to listen, to understand and to compromise; to seek the best and most complete information and be prepared to own the outcome and make changes if they are warranted by the results.
Leadership preferences, while often guided more by instinct and emotion, should never ignore the actual qualifications of that leader and the implications of his actions. We have four years of extensive information to inform us; along with previous public actions. We have a vast amount of primary and secondary resources to draw upon and it is incumbent upon us to not overlook or ignore the information that would legitimately question and reject another four years with Trump in the White House.
In Dr. Grudem’s response to his anti-Trump friend he writes:
“Thank you for your thoughtful, honest email explaining why you felt frustration and anger about my public support of Donald Trump. I'm glad that you wrote as you did rather than leaving the matter unspoken.
Thank you also for writing, as a long-time friend, to express your concerns that my support of Trump might jeopardize the reputation that I have built as a trusted professor of theology and ethics for the last 43 years, and that my pro-Trump stance undermines the credibility of the label “evangelical,” and even of the Christian gospel itself.”
Dr. Grudem is polite and says that he had given his friend’s concerns several days consideration, but as I read through his response, that consideration seems more cursory than in depth. Zachary’s letter must have been inspired by a deep concern that Dr. Grudem’s support was outside of what he had previously expected from a scholar of his reputation and experience and caused him enough dissonance to take the chance of alienating a respected friend. I am experiencing the same kind of dissonance myself at this moment.
Dr. Grudem contends that his major concerns are policies and Trump’s character flaws and personal failures do not prevent him from delivering policies that he supports. If that is the case, we will go there first.
I am researching each of his important policy bullet points and that research and my commentary is taking more pages that I’ll post in my blog later. All this writing, research and fact verification seems to be the only way that I can truly wrap my mind around the Evangelical mindset and world view and it’s impact on our democracy. I am frightened by this world view and it is not because I see them as evil, but as minimizing and accepting evil to accomplish what they see as good. Such unexamined righteousness is almost impervious to rational arguments.
But for now, I’m going summarize my feeling and my conclusions. Religious, social and cultural beliefs arise from our experiences, training and family and community influences. They guide our lives in generally positive ways but no set of beliefs is infallible or applicable to every individual. There is usually room in a free society for differences of beliefs and their expressions; there are also tensions and accommodations—a dance of differences that Americans have negotiated quite well for over 200 years. Sometimes we have to confront those belief systems—our own and others.
When Dr. Grudem minimizes the concerns of his friend and when he minimizes the harm that Trump has done and continues to do he has chosen to do what scholars should never do; only look at the evidence that supports his view and reject with prejudice the preponderance of evidence against.
This is not like any other time in history; this is not like any Presidency we have ever experienced. If we had had a President McCain, a President Romney, a President Jeb Bush, or John Kasich; I would have no doubt disagreed with some of their policies but I would have respected them as leaders that would have exercised their powers within the law and with dignity. President Trump is not a leader that respects the law, the Constitution or anyone that disagrees with him. His lawlessness is damaging now and into the future. He is a profound embarrassment on the world stage.
A metaphor to express this unprecedented time in history: A man is sitting on the couch watching a football game. His wife enters the room and says, “You have to turn off the TV now.” Let’s look at 3 different scenarios.
Scenario 1. He says, “No, why would I do that?”
She says, “You know I hate football, so turn it off.”
Scenario 2. He says, “No, why would I do that?”
She says, “Because football is a sport that endangers its players with the likelihood of getting CTE, Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and I don’t think it is ethical to view and support the game that can cause such damage.
Scenario 3. He says, “No, why would I do that?”
She says, “Because, I’m in labor and the baby is almost here!”
He says, “It’s the playoff; call your sister or take a taxi. If it’s too close, please go to another room and try not to make too much noise.”
We are not at scenario 1. It would be wrong to reject Dr. Grudem’s argument just because I think differently. The wife’s opinion about not liking football has no more validity than her husband’s. Blue as a favorite color is no more virtuous than liking green or purple.
But having a reason for not watching football takes us to scenario 2. In scenario 2, her reason for wanting to turn off the TV has a basis in facts. Her opinion is worthy of a discussion and her husband could present opinions to the contrary. It is an ethical question without a single answer, but some answers are better than others and conclusions or new paths forward can be reached. That is how I have usually regarded political disagreements; there is more than one point of view and respectful discussion allows us to see aspects we hadn’t noticed before and can bring us to a solution that could include all, some or none of either opinion. I’m used to that world, where disagreements and conflicts exist, but so do facts and so do reasonable people willing to solve problems and work together.
Something is wrong with scenario 3, but that’s where I think we are living today. Just as the birth of a baby, living in Trump world is a singular event, not business as usual. You cannot make an argument that all politicians behave equally badly or that both parties are equally to blame if you can look at facts objectively. Of course you can find anecdotes to support your point of view; but there are many stories and I could find anecdotes to refute yours. “The plural of anecdote is not data.”
In this example the husband has really, really not been paying attention and has no empathy and takes no personal responsibility. Trump supporters have missed the expanding belly of our distress and fear; they have missed the ranks of prominent Republicans voting for Biden and the reasons for that support; they have missed the actual finding of the Mueller report and the 1000 page Senate Intelligence report on Russian involvement; and they have glossed over the strong case for Trump’s removal from office and the actual impeachment.
They have given short shrift to the generals that have condemned his actions, demeanor and his words (military leaders have always preferred to be non-partisan); former officials who have called him an idiot, incompetent, dangerous or worse. Trump supported have failed to reckon with almost 60,000 psychologists who signed a petition to remove him from office and the 27 of them who authored a book called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.
They have mitigated the endless lies about everything large and small and the trail of sexual abuse, (25 women) fraud,(Trump University) corruption (Trump Foundation and all the Emoluments accepted unlawfully) and criminal involvement (unindicted co-conspirator in the crime that gave Michael Cohen a 3 year prison term and the crimes that the SDNY’s office are currently investigating).
This is not close to an inclusive list. McSweeney’s, an independent publishing house has compiled an ongoing list with the hyperbolic but appropriate title of: LEST WE FORGET THE HORRORS: A CATALOG OF TRUMP’S WORST CRUELTIES, COLLUSIONS, CORRUPTIONS, AND CRIMES: THE COMPLETE LISTING SO FAR): ATROCITIES 1-842. Folks; that's 842 and counting!! Obama wore a tan suit and Fox News went crazy!
Dr. Grudem admits to some character flaws in Trump and congratulates himself on mentioning them, but concludes they are just not that bad. I don’t think Dr. Grudem would ever willingly look at this list. He would apparently let any misbehavior by a public official be excused; or would he?
Here is the statement that he signed, along with other academics and scholars about presidential misconduct, unfortunately, as appropriate as it might be, the object of this ethical indictment is not Donald Trump, but Bill Clinton. Almost point by point this would apply to Donald Trump and with a much wider scope of actions to be examined. Please look closely.
“We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions….Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.
I don’t think I have to say more about Dr. Grudem's supposed high-minded support of Donald Trump…I will let the words he attested to 22 years ago conclude my argument:
“But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda.”
No comments:
Post a Comment