The seemingly irreparable divide between Christians who support President Donald Trump and those who don’t grew even wider last week with the publication of an editorial by Christianity Today editor-in-chief Mark Galli calling for the president’s removal from office. His central reason? The “profoundly immoral” action of using “his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents.”
While Galli’s piece no doubt endeared him to the left and Never Trump “right,” the fallout in pro-Trump circles was intense. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and a Trump supporter himself, naturally punched back at the magazine founded by his father, tweeting that the late evangelist, who voted for Trump, would be “disappointed.” Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. opined that Christianity Today has been “unmasked” as part of the “liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades.” Former NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch issued a rebuttal for the ages. And there were plenty more where those came from.
In reading Galli’s piece, the first thing that struck me was the Christianity Today editor’s lazy use of absurd Democratic Party talking points as his straw that finally broke the camel’s back. Apparently, in the Gospel according to Galli, if an opposing party candidate is in the mix to possibly end up running against you, that candidate or anyone related to that candidate can commit any crime, anywhere, and you aren’t allowed to ask for it to be investigated. Uh, okay.
I mean seriously, COME ON! Tell us you heard Trump say a curse word. Tell us his last mean tweet was one mean tweet too many. Tell us you saw him kick a dog or toss a cat out the window. Tell us about his extramarital affairs, or that you were in a news vortex when the Access Hollywood tape hit and, now that you’ve had a chance to review it, it’s just more than you can handle.
Really, if he’s anything like the Democrats who’ve been trying to unite on an excuse to remove Trump from office since January 2017, pretty much any reason would make better sense than the patently absurd Schiff/Pelosi/Nadler impeachment narrative. But since that’s the lame excuse Galli used in his piece, it’s hard to take him any more seriously than the Democrats. It’s also easy to assume that the good editor, like his brand-new leftist and Never Trump pals, has likely been looking for his own excuse, well, since January 2017.
But take it seriously we must, if only because of its impact on the national dialogue the past few days. The piece invoked the name of the formerly conservative magazine’s founder, the legendary evangelist Billy Graham, and though it did list a few other Trump shortcomings, it gave the Democratic-led impeachment hearings credit for having “illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see.” Thus, Trump’s removal from office, to Galli and our betters at Christianity Today, is “not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”
Wow, I mean if the freaking editor of Christianity Today says loyalty to God is at stake, well …
I know. It’s pretty crazy, but the craziest part is this man should know better. In the midst of his anti-Trump screed, he manages to write: “Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president.”
Even in my obvious frustration with his piece, I have no doubt that Mark Galli is a good person who means well and does his best to follow Christ. However, pray tell, where does he and others of his persuasion think the Supreme Court, religious liberty, and the economy would be had Hillary Clinton been elected president? I shudder to think.
Under fire, Galli did hedge a bit during a Sunday morning “Face the Nation” interview, calling his article “hyperbole,” or something, since the actual chances of Trump being removed are “fairly slim.” Understanding that his play on words could be understood as a “distinction without a difference,” the Christianity Today editor nevertheless made a “moral judgment” that Trump is “morally unfit.”
I’ll give Galli and other anti-Trump Christians credit for also speaking out against former President Bill Clinton, but his comments do lead one to wonder if the Christianity Today editor likewise called former President Barack Obama “morally unfit” for, you know, aiding and abetting the literal murder of millions of unborn children.
At any rate, another unavoidable aspect of this sort of news cycle is watching liberal media types press conservatives on what they, of all people, consider Trump’s deficient character traits. For example, CNN host Chris Cuomo, for the life of him, just can’t understand why evangelical radio host Eric Metaxas supports someone who supposedly “makes a mockery of your faith.”
“Well, it’s like my pilot has tattoos and he’s on his fourth wife but he’s an amazing pilot,” Metaxas told Cuomo. “I would prefer a pilot who has been married for 30 years to the same woman. Sometimes things are complicated.”
A debate veteran, Metaxas did a good job parrying Cuomo’s jabs, but the ultimate point is, we all know good and well the left-wing media would be fighting just as hard against any conservative in office, whether it be Donald Trump, Mike Pence, or Jesus Christ himself.
In truth, other than giving Trump-haters something to crow about, I doubt Galli’s piece moved the meter one iota. I doubt one single Trump supporter read that and thought, “Wow, I really need to turn in my guns and let a bunch of proto-Marxists run the country, and my life, because some Christian magazine editor I never heard of says God says so.”
So, to Galli and his ilk, spare us the histrionics and ridiculous virtue-signaling. I’m pretty sure that preserving freedom, protecting the unborn and defeating an ideology responsible for untold suffering and the slaughter of tens of millions of people trumps any sort of concern you’ve got about the president’s supposed “moral” failings.