Just after the US House of Representatives impeachment vote against President Trump, and right before Christmas, Christianity Today (CT), an evangelical magazine, and its outgoing editor Mark Galli, issued a scathing attack on Mr. Trump. In no uncertain terms, Galli said Mr. Trump should be removed from office because he was ‘profoundly immoral’ and ‘clearly guilty’ of the impeachments charges lodged against him by the US House.
Part 02: Though President Trump was acquitted by the US Senate, this series is focusing on Christianity Today and their assertions, which they assiduously stand by. Apparently, the magazine gained 5,000 new subscribers, but lost 2,000. Does their editorial represent an evangelical drift to the left?
Of course, true to form, President Trump weighed in immediately on the controversy. Here is part of his tweet:
… (Christianity Today) would rather have a Radical Left nonbeliever, who wants to take your religion & your guns, than Donald Trump as President. No President has done more for the Evangelical community, and it’s not even close.
Back in 2018, Mr. Galli criticised Christian Trump supporters in condescending tones. Referring to himself as an ‘elite evangelical,’ disparaged of Trump voters as college-drop outs, blue collar workers, who don’t write books, give speeches ….
To gain some perspective, let’s keep a few points in mind:
Never-Trumpers: While it is normal and natural to think of President Trump’s opponents and critics as all left-wing progressives and Democrats, he also has critics on the right, who are self-proclaimed conservatives. These include fellow Republicans (some are dubbed RINOs – Republican in name only). In addition is the group known as ‘never-Trumpers.’ Of interest, some of the President’s Christian supporters were once ‘never-Trumpers,’ but were won over to Trump’s side by his rhetoric, actions, and/or policies. Today’s Christian ‘never-Trumpers’ refuse to accept the President or acknowledge any good he has done, full stop. Even if Trump raised the dead, they would still find fault. The CT editorial came across in the ‘never-Trumper’ genre.
Here are some other issues to help us ‘understand the times.’
Impeachment: This word has been used, over-used, and abused over the last 3 years, but it represents a serious constitutional safety valve. It is an indictment over a public official who is accused of bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanours. Like an emergency exit ramp, automobile air bag, or an amputation, it should only be used as a last resort. The reason is because it is overturns a democratic election. Too many impeachments or wrongly-motivate impeachments are unhealthy for democracy. And … in accord with western legal standards, the accused should be considered innocent unless proven guilty.
Ukraine: To say, as Galli asserts, that the ‘facts’ of Trump’s Ukraine dealings are ‘unambiguous’ is, at best, wishful thinking. Please consider: the accusations against the President have not come from an independent counsel or investigator, but from partisan politicians who announced their intention to impeach the President from the moment he won the 2016 election. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, the Democrats have been planning impeachment for the last 2 1/2 years. They were merely waiting for a pretext.
The accusers say Trump pressured the Ukrainian President by threatening to withhold aid unless he investigated a political rival, Joe Biden and son Hunter, during an election year. This quid pro quo is an impeachable offence, say the Democrats. Apparently Galli agreed.
Ukrainian President Zelensky said he felt no pressure from Trump. The transcript of the telephone call revealed no pressure. Reports from US special envoy Kurt Volker attested to the same. Those who testified in the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees were not first-hand witnesses of any crime, and even the ‘whistleblower’ who started this entire episode is reported to be a registered Democrat, CIA employee, nurses partisan bias, and worked for Obama and Biden.
Yes, the aid was temporarily held up because of well-founded concerns regarding corruption. Yet the Ukrainians did not know it was held up, the money was released in reasonable time, and the Ukrainians did not do anything to obtain that release.
If the facts were ‘unambiguous’, why is it that not one House Republican voted for the articles of impeachment? And what about the video of then-Vice President Biden, bragging how aid to Ukraine would be withheld unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son? Why is this incident overlooked?
Therefore, the facts have not been established of impeachable offences and the calls for the President’s ouster are unfounded and unjust.
In Part 03, we will see if evangelicalism is truly drifting to the left:
TO BE CONTINUED.