“The President is Authentically Himself” [Updated]
A sad fact about the quality of American leadership and an indictment of Christians who ardently support it.
First, a bit of sound from the President of the United States from the Charlie Kirk memorial on Sunday. He said, with gusto, I would note, “I hate my opponent, and don’t want the best for them…I can’t stand my opponent.”
By the way, I take this as a moment of profound honesty from Trump.
This all seems relevant from a human perspective as a general matter and a leadership perspective specifically, given that one of the things a President is supposed to do is lead the whole country once elected. It is especially relevant when we do need a leader to help tone things down (but, of course, this is the opposite of what Trump is doing).
On the one hand (and I am not even being snarky in saying this), she is doing her job. The job of the White House Press Secretary is to get the administration’s viewpoint out to the public. That often requires spin and diversion. So, on the one hand, she doesn’t actually answer the question asked, but diverts somewhat. Sometimes such diversions are wildly off topic. What is striking here is that she diverts into the core truth, which is that Trump is being “authentically himself” when he says, “I hate my opponent.”
For emphasis: the White House Press Secretary is confirming, from behind the podium that holds the presidential seal, that the President “hating” is a sign of his authenticity.
I mean, I guess at least she is being honest?
Let me note another symbol, which is the golden cross she wears around her neck at every press briefing. I do so less to pick on Leavitt than to critique the many evangelical Christians who seem to, again in Leavitt’s words, “love” the president and his authenticity. I will note that she did not name-check that group, but we do know that among the “millions of Americans” she cited, many of them are adherents to that faith.
As such, the following comes to mind.
Jesus, who the aforementioned golden necklace is supposed to evoke, rather famously said in Mark 12:31, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and went on to give an incredibly expansive definition of who “your neighbor” is (expansive enough to include one’s political opponents, I assure the reader).
And, of course, there is that pesky Sermon on the Mount, when in Matthew 5:43-45: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
I point all of this out not to engage in some bloggy version of Sunday School. Nor do I expect Jesus-like perfection from political leaders. But here’s what I do expect (and, yet, am being failed): if a group of people claim to deeply believe in a set of tenets, then I expect them to care enough about those tenets to reject being led by someone who clearly does not respect their beliefs, especially when other options exist.
For Christ-followers to so deeply cleave to Trump, who brazenly proclaims his hatred of his enemies, is pretty hard to take. In some ways, it is harder to take the obviously opposite of Christ’s lifestyle that Trump has led (you know, the greed, adultery, and whatnot).
Christians have a way of being able to tell themselves that the past is the past if a profession of faith is made, and hence, we know that cover of this type was provided for Trump by people like Franklin Graham and James Dobson, who told the masses back in the first term that Trump had accepted Christ as his personal savior.
You know, the magic words.
But, again, taking Christian theology on its own terms, Saul, the persecutor of the Church and perpetrator of heinous sins, can be converted and become Paul, a major figure in Christianity.
Some may say that Trump, like all of us, is still but a sinner and so, as per Romans 3:2, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” As such, I can hear the rationalizations now that Trump just faltered in a time of emotion.
But I will counter with Matthew 7:16, “By their fruit you will recognize them.” In other words, the action that at produced. Let me add Luke 6:45, “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.”
If you have stuck with me this far, you may ask why I am doing all of this. To be clear, I am not engaging in the common evangelical game of “proof text,” wherein verses are supposed to be a kind of nuclear bomb to win a dispute.
I suppose, as with all of these missives to the internet, I am thinking out loud about some of my profound frustrations with this administration and with the people who continue to support him. Part of me hopes that someone will read this and, to stick with the biblical theme, have the scales fall from their eyes and realize what a threat Trump is to the very fabric of their country, and to the souls of those who follow him. Short-term gains should not be worth following a person who brazenly preaches hatred. (I fear, however, that the response of such persons will be rationalization.)
To me, a Christian who supports Trump is like a committed Marxist supporting an unabashed capitalist. It does not make sense if a person is really committed to their belief system.
I will note that if the answer one tells oneself is that “the ends justify the means” (you know, like getting Roe overturned), you are quoting not Christian doctrine, but a bastardized version of Machiavelli’s The Prince.
I would hasten to add that if you are a Bible-believing Christian and you bristle at accusations of “Christian nationalism,” but you are cheering for Trump’s anti-Christ* behavior and attitudes because he is using state power to make America more Christian again (whether that is about abortion, trans-rights, or whatever), you might need to reevaluate whether that label, and all its connotations, might not in fact be correct.
It also may mean that one is more committed to political power than one is to the teachings of Christ.
That may sound harsh to some, and I understand how polarized we are and how much party loyalty is deeply ingrained in our identities. But I would ask anyone who adheres to the Christian faith and continues to support Trump to consider what you are seeing in front of your nose.
An Addition (Added about 20 minutes after I posted).
Let me note two things that I think are really important in contextualizing this post.
First, let’s never forget that plenty of people who adhere to the Christian faith voted for Democrats. Indeed, there are Christians in the US and around the world who are of the left. This vexes American evangelicals, or so I have noted from personal experience, but that vexation does not make it untrue.
Second, the point here is not to valorize Christianity or to proclaim it as anything other than a coherent set of beliefs and teachings. This post is about the self-proclaimed beliefs of a set of persons that are in direct contradiction to an individual they are supporting, of their own free will,** as a leader.
I am basically saying that if you claim a certain philosophical position, it is not unreasonable to assume that you should be faithful to that tradition. If you are Marxist, it is not unreasonable to assume that you will adhere to certain core tenets about capital. If you are a self-professed observant Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist, there are certain behaviors that we would all expect to see.
In that way, I am simply trying to take evangelicals seriously on their own terms.
And, this is the kicker, I suppose, if you violate basic tenets of your professed philosophy, it may suggest that some things are more important than said philosophy. This brings to mind yet another biblical passage, Matthew 6:21, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” If dominating national politics so as to impose your will on the population is more important than actually following the teachings of Christ, well, where is your heart? What do you treasure?
*It seems worth underscoring that while in popular culture the term “Anti-Christ” refers to some End Times business, the term is used in the text to simply mean one opposed to the teachings of Christ. If Christ says “love your enemies” and Trump says, “I hate my opponent,” then, clearly, Trump is taking the anti-Christ position.
**Or are they? Insert your Calvinism joke here–that’s a nod for a particular kind of reader, maybe, in fact one specific reader.
I’m pretty sure most Christians are done with their faith being used as a weapon against them by pagans like Steven L. Taylor.
And a post like this in the wake of scores of people on Steven L. Taylor’s side of politics publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death is beyond ridiculous.
I don’t know if there’s some quota of anti-Trump posts a middle-aged man in academia has to make to keep his “ally” status, but I have a suggestion if they’re meant for some other purpose.
Try acknowledging, just a bit, the beam in your own eye before worrying about the mote in anyone else’s.
When one’s authentic self is an ignorant, vindictive, incompetent ahole …
@PepperPrepper:
Ah, the, the irony of it all…
First, you may be the first person to even call me a “pagan” in my 5-plus decades on the planet and a long, public-facing career, so kudos for that, I guess.
But, also: you are, as usual, utterly ignoring the contents of the post and trying to engage in whataboutism.
I challenge you to find one single way in which I have been in support of people who have celebrated Kirk’s death. You will find the opposite.
If you are going to engage, how about actually addressing what I wrote?
Lol. LMAO even.
To criticize the President, the leader of the free world, the most powerful person on the globe, and the leader of my chosen political movement of millions, when there were people on the internet–dozens of them even!–who were mean last week? Please, someone grab my fainting couch, quickly.
Aren’t sock puppets banned at OTB?
There was a time when Christians would die rather than betray their faith. But that was back when Christians actually tried to live their beliefs. And BTW, this is not just the Evangelicals, where the hell are the Catholics and Methodists and Lutherans? They are silent collaborators, rather like the Roman Catholic church under Hitler.
@Neil Hudelson: I am not the host here, so my opinion doesn’t matter all that much. I have not yet decided if the current poster is a paid operative or just a passionate person who is feeling very much threatened by the way the worm is turning.
I’m leaning toward the latter, though.
@Jay L. Gischer:
When this commenter first showed up a few days ago, I believe Steven indicated he has the same ip address as our beloved Drew.
Great post!
Trump and his heathen cult murdered Officer Brian Sicknick and others with the Jan 6 terror attack, and have since celebrated both that shameful day and its perpetrators, who Trump pardoned. Not unlike Charlie Kirk and the Trumps using homophobic bile to mock and celebrate the attempted murder of Paul Pelosi.
Trump, a proven pathological liar found liable for rape, is hiding the Epstein files to obscure his child abuse. It tracks, given the pedo-in-chief’s public sexualization of his then-underage daughter. Gross.
Jesus preached feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, caring for the sick. Trumpers disappear migrants to torture prisons without 5th Amendment due process while stripping the poor of food assistance and healthcare coverage. While President Tariff Trumpflation announces he “hates” Americans.
Clearly not Christ-like. But it’s not a case of No True Scotsman: Christianity has usually been Christlike in name only. Much of the evangelical right is now antichrist; hence why Sunday morning is so segregated. We (black folk) decline to church with frauds whose “faith” is a thin front for gay bashing, racism, and white supremacy. Their slide into embittered fascism isn’t shocking to any of us who grew up amongst these hypocrites.
Just to amplify Steven’s comment a bit. If you profess faith, and hold that all things work towards God’s will, I really don’t know why you would support Trump, even if you thought he had been born again.
When the President is being authentically himself – and yes, I endorse that – he stokes resentment. Everyone feels anger, and there is no command to never be angry. The command is to work on it, and find the place where you can love even while opposing.
I will also remark that in my studies of the history of Christian peoples and churches, it always turns out to be very bad for faith to get heavily invested in politics. Always.
The question that bothers me so much is how so many managed to lose the thread. Their endorsement of Trump as Darius troubles me greatly. It’s like they want to make a deal with the devil to advance God’s will. I am fairly clear that that’s a bad idea and not endorsed in any teaching I have ever seen.
I think it demonstrates a fear that things will go very badly if they don’t abandon their principles, and a lack of faith, too. Or perhaps those principles weren’t very tightly held in the first place?
I don’t know, and it isn’t up for me to decide. My liberal politics rest on two principles I learned in Church, though I don’t really go any more.
1. Love your neighbor as yourself
2. Love of money is the root of all evil.
Money is not evil in and of itself. It’s when we put it ahead of people that it’s a problem. How much is a valid question, and we could talk about that.
What I am not willing to talk about is throwing people in jail not because of anything they did but because they have some identity that is somehow a problem.
What I find obscene is how so many Christians are being jerked around by rich guys who want lower taxes for themselves and the ability to lie constantly and profit from it.
Resentment comes from sorrow, from trauma, but the sorrow is hidden behind the resentment. If you told us your sorrow, it would be a very different conversation. That is a conversation I long for.
@Steven L. Taylor:
That would require reading comprehension.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Wait, did I miss the post wherein you admitted that you are a polytheist? Or have you found some sort of lost ancient knowledge that has led you to worship the tides and the moon and the ficus? I mean, I like figs, too . . . But maybe you need to spend more time on photography.
@PepperPrepper: Let’s face it. The motivating emotion of most MAGA “Christians” is hate. They hate anyone who doesn’t think, believe, look, or act like them. Their hate denies the faith of millions who practice Christianity. So much hate that they have to use the force of authority to compel the people they are to their will. And as haters, they are punch down, suck up personalities. As a practicing Christian I am taught to forgive. However, I must confess I have a hard time being a good Christian right now.
@Steven L. Taylor:
You gave the troll the opening to reveal what they treasure. Well played.
The “plenty of people who adhere to the Christian faith [who] voted for Democrats” are the types who would take Christian teaching to “go forth and make disciples” as an act of generosity – spreading the Good Word, as it were, to those who are open to receive it. These folks have the Coexist (spelled out in religious symbols) bumper stickers on their cars.
As I noted in another thread, our current dystopian polarization isn’t driven by ideology but by a want for domination, while ideology is a means to that end. It’s how the oligarchs can comfortably climb into bed with the theocrats – moderation and compromise is for suckers is their only common creed. A POTUS that hates half of his country is a good fit for a coalition of people who would force what they want down the throats of everybody else.
Black church leaders reject Charlie Kirk martyrdom and point to his race rhetoric
–AP News
@PepperPrepper: I look forward to the kindness and compassion you and your ilk will exhibit when President Biden leaves this realm for the next.
@Steven L. Taylor:
But if you were a pagan, what sort thereof?
So many choices: Zeus, Odin, or the Brahamanic Trimurti?
Taoism perhaps?
A druid maybe, in the groves of academe?
lol
Personally I’ve always had a fondness for Bacchus as a possible tutelary deity. 😉
Indeed he is.
And therein lies the problem.
@PepperPrepper:
I’m going to quote a part of a reply to you I made to previously:
To follow on from Professor Taylor’s observations, there are in fact numerous Christians who have voted for parties of the “left”, current US Right othodoxy notwihtstanding.
The UK Labour Party was famously described as “owing more to Methodism than to Marxism”
While the European Christian Democrats were often Christians (the clue is in the name), but also “conservatives”, but also again largely supporters of the sort of state welfare policies many US “Christian conservatives” condemn as both as un-conservative, and, quite often un-christian.
The Papacy, for example, is pretty definitionally Christian, but nonetheless often rather critical of the current US administration.
US “Christian Conservatives”
might do weel to consider that right-wing evangelicalism is not the sole measure of “Christianity”, and nor is right-wing Republicanism the standard measure of “conservatism”.
(US Republicans being, in the view of many European traditionalist conservatives, a rather odd derivative of early 19th Century liberalism)
IMO, between the trinity doctrine, plus worship of Jesús’ mom, and the worship of saints, Christians are the largest polytheistic religion on the planet right now.
Whatever Christianity was in the beginning, it turned to something rather different when Constantine made it Rome’s state religion.
@PepperPrepper:
Ah, I see we’ve reached the personal insult part of the usual descent pattern.
That’s actually faster than usual.
Also, FWIW I’m pretty sure that Steven and Michael B are the only two contributers here who regularly participate in religions services.
@PepperPrepper:
Oh, brother.
One does not get to have it both ways. The moment a religious person claims their religious text(s) guide their politics and is (are) the framework for structuring the government and legal system is the moment that person is using their religious beliefs as a political weapon.
Moreover, if one advocates that a nation’s laws should be based on a religious text, then one is introducing that text as a matter of public debate. More to the point, a specific interpretation of that text into the debate as well as whether the religious group’s preferred policy squares with the sacred text or not.
Meaning, if a political party, or a powerful faction thereof, explicitly identifies its politics as derived from religion, they do not also get to claim that analysis of their hermeneutics is off-limits and an unfair weaponization of their religiosity.
Quite frankly, it seems like intentionally leveraging the sacred this way debases it to the point that it is no longer sacred, just another tool for expanding power.
As Steven points out, there are plenty of Christians that fall on the left. I should add, some of them are Americans. Some around the world, are even, better grab your pearls, *whispers* socialists. I’ve even heard of some 20th century Catholic movements that drew heavily upon key tenants of *looks around, silently mouths* Marxism.
Simply put, do not want your political positions to be scrutinized in light of your own sacred book? Don’t base your political positions on what you say that book says, especially if the claims are ahistorical, de-contextualized, and/or controversial within the broader religious community beyond your denomination.
@Neil Hudelson: I do not have IP-based evidence.
So, while I am not 100% certain, the style is radically similar. He also has not denied that connection.
Edit: Prepper’s propensity to drop a critique and then scurry off is also very Drew/Jack/Whomever-like.
@JohnSF:
I sometimes wonder how these radical Christians would feel if they were met by Toth and Ammit in the afterlife. I doubt many of them have a heart lighter than a feather.
@Kurtz:
This is probably the best advice.
@JohnSF: 100%
Trump’s worshipers fall into 2 categories:
1) Those saps who truly believe he’s a devout Christian who accepted Jesus as his savior late in life.
2) Those who know full well that Trump is a malevolent, ignorant churl–and revel in it.
@Matt Bernius:
To set the record straight, I have not, in some years now, regularly participated in religious services, although for much of my life I was frequently a twice-a-week type.
@Kurtz:
Exactly.
100% (epsecially when you connect the sacred to someone like Trump).
@Kathy:
Or perhaps if they encounter the Chinvat Bridge, and Sraosha, Mithra, and Rashnu invite Daena and Vizaresha to take those whose actions are appropriate to each?
@Steven L. Taylor:
My apologies! I am now only 90% certain instead of 100% certain.
Good post. You know a President who was a good ambassador for Christianity and practiced what it preaches? Jimmy Carter. They/Them do speak ill of him often, but he was a good person. He was authentically good, rather than mean and spiteful.
@Kurtz:
Evangelical Dominionism and it’s conservative Catholic counterpart, Integralism, are very much a factor in modern politics, with adherents running for public office. But the supposedly liberal MSM seem to include them in a self-imposed taboo on discussing a candidates religion.
@Matt Bernius: Scott raises his hand.
The Drew/Jack character seemed to show up later in threads and sounded somewhat sloshed. Whereas the Pepper character shows up early and comes off as sober. Otherwise, it’s the same.
Yep, he’s authentic, alright.
What a horrible bunch of really small, petty people.
But, is it a coherent set of beliefs and teachings? There seems to be a huge split in Christianity about whether faith is more important than deeds.
The Bible is a large, ponderous work filled with contradictions that allow people to pick and choose. There are multiple telling of the life of Jesus from different perspectives, Rashomon style.
I have mostly respect for the branch of Christianity that is centered on deeds like helping the less fortunate, welcoming refugees, not casting the first stone, etc. My favorite branch of Christianity, Universal Unitarianism, starts with the premise that God’s mercy is infinite and all are saved, and thus that faith don’t mean shit, but that to honor this infinite mercy we on Earth should kind of at least try to have some.
(My knowledge of UU is pretty rudimentary. I like the way it turns a lot of ideas on their head. It appeals to me in much the way that Jews in NYC do, as they seem to have a religion based on finding loopholes in the Word of God — the wire around Manhattan is brilliant, based on the notion that it’s a wall with really big doorways defined by utility poles and the wire)
And then there’s things like the Prosperity Gospel. And someone like Trump fits neatly into that tradition.
It doesn’t feel like remotely the same religion. A few names in common, but every state has a Springfield. But, as my nihilistic brother is fond of saying “not my monkey, not my circus.”
To me, this all comes down to how one interprets Jesus’s line in Jesus Christ Superstar “there will be poor always, pathetically struggling.” It can either mean that the work is never done and one should take no breaks, that one needs to be able to care for oneself in addition to the poor, or there’s really no point in doing anything for the poor because they will always be with us.
——
Judas really is an insufferable leftist in JCS, isn’t he? Starts from good goals, has relentless devotion to the cause, looks down on those who aren’t as strident (including JC), and then eventually comes to the conclusion that things have to get worse before they can get better and that he should actively try to make them worse.
Of course, he’s also canonically right in that telling, as at the end he descends from heaven to sing the big closing number with the foxy angels.
Meanwhile Jesus is just there trying to do what he can in the time he has left, getting increasingly frustrated by so very many lepers to the point where he shouts “heal yourselves!” Milquetoast liberal by comparison, but still better than someone like Chuck Schumer. (They’re both Jews on the left, but Schumer would never flip the tables of the moneylenders, he would just be disappointed and opposed and send a strongly worded letter.)
@Kurtz and @Steven L. Taylor: Stated differently and like an immutable law of physics, whenever religion sets about to mold a set of politics, it is always the politics that do the actual molding and control the relationship. Everywhere. All the time.
@Joe:
With the possible exception of Calvin’s Geneva, for a time?
But even there, after Calvin’s death, Calvinism as such quite soon became rather secondary to the material interests of the ruling group.
@JohnSF:
Everywhere.
All the time.
Eventually (usually sooner than later).
@Kathy:
There certainly seem to be a lot that prefer the Old Testament Father aspect over the others.
@Joe:
When politics and religion get into bed, it’s religion that tends to get screwed, sooner or later.
See also the aftermath of Contantine’s Christianisation of the Roman Empire; or Henry VIII in England; or the Counter-Reformation in Spain; or the problematic heritage for Islam of being a politcal AND religous project almost from the outset.
etc etc
Though sometimes that works out for the best.
Both in the Netherlands and England, eventually, the ruling groups got fed up with the pretensions of the “religous enthusiasts” and obliged them to curb their ambitions.
As, in a diffrent way, did various Catholic monarchs: see Jesuits, supression of.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Sorry for the project. FWIW, I was a once-a-weeker and served on a church board at one point in my adult life.
Church is once every two weeks for me. We have 2 ministers and one gives awful sermons so I avoid those weeks.
I agree with much of the post and I believe that most avid Trump supporters are really performative Christians. This is not really new as if you will recall the group that most avidly supported torture during the Iraq War were the evangelicals. It’s pretty clear that many evangelicals have become selective in what part of the Bible they choose to believe.
That said, I have talked with evangelicals whom I think are true in their beliefs. They have told me that they avidly oppose abortion and on that basis they cant support a Dem and voting 3rd party is a waste. They understand that otherwise Trump is the antithesis of everything they believe in. I am not a single issue voter and I dont believe the Bible gives us too much privacy about any sins even if you think abortion is wrong (in fact Jesus told us what was important to him) but I can see how a true Christian would end up making a difficult decision on how to vote. However, as I said above if you are an avid Trump supporter I doubt your proclaimed beliefs.
Steve
Steve
@steve222:
I so get that.
I think the most vocal public supporters are largely performative Christians. Though even there, it’s a slippery slope.
Honestly, the difference between Charlie Kirk and his wife Erika strikes me as HUGE and gets to some of these challenges. I have no idea about either of their practices of their personal interpretations of Christianity. The bit of Erika Kirk I’ve heard feels like more of what I consider closer to “true Chrisitiantiy.”
Going further out and looking to my family, I think your point extends beyond evangelicals and to a lot of “high church” and Conservative Christians. They really believe that Christianity is the most persecuted religion on a global basis and within the US. I am not sure what to do with that.
A lot of Christian doctrine always positions Christianity as an oppressed religion. Then there’s a bunch of stuff from my gen and prior that has Christianity and mission work deeply tied to Cold War soft power.
My general sense is that any social progress (which is often threatening to White folks and, in particular, White men as the guiding force on our culture) is perceived as being counter to a LOT of Protestant groups. My sense is that’s a bit different in the Catholic church, but that’s not my “home base.”
@Gustopher:
I take the point. I really, truly do and could get into a much deeper discussion of the topic.
But I still don’t think it is unfair to speak of Christianity as a general category the same way that you can talk about Marxists. But yes, there are substantial subcategories of both.
@PepperPrepper:
“Try acknowledging, just a bit, the beam in your own eye before worrying about the mote in anyone else’s.”
*giggles*