We Have Forgotten How to Blush

A critique of the American Evangelical Church during the second Trump presidency

Last week America celebrated its 249th birthday. Like many of you, Karen and I celebrated together with friends while watching the neighbors propel multiple hundreds of dollars’ worth of fireworks into the air above us. (I’ve got to admit… in spite of my conviction about the unnecessary expense, they looked pretty cool).

During our nation’s birthday week, a number of events with far-reaching implications took place, including the tragic floods in Texas that gripped the heart of the nation. The death toll exceeded that of any flood event for decades. Unsurprisingly, there is already internal reporting that the Trump administration cuts to FEMA have reduced the number of personnel who ordinarily would have been involved in the recovery efforts. Like so much of the DOGE project, the cuts they instigated often proved to be reckless and capricious. With the prime hurricane season still in front of us, we have yet to see to what extent the federal relief efforts will be impacted.

Last week we were also reminded that much of the Trump agenda runs in direct contradiction to Christian moral principles of truth, justice, and charity. Sadly, however, that moral tension seemed to barely register on the radar of politically active Evangelicals. I offer three examples.

On July 1^st, USAID was officially shuttered. The congressionally established governmental organization, one of the first to fall to the DOGE onslaught, has for over five decades been the most consistent enemy of world hunger on the planet, far outstripping efforts mounted by the private sector. Karen and I, like many of you, give consistently to Christian NGOs in order to combat global poverty. But the elimination of USAID from the charity landscape will leave a gigantic hole that is nearly impossible to fill, estimated to result in fourteen million additional deaths over the next five years. God’s people, whom Jesus called to minister to the “least of these,” ought to be deeply troubled. Instead, I have heard next to nothing. Apparently our concern for the “least of these” is minimalized when the “least” live very far away and don’t look like us.

About the same time, the Senate was entrenched in the effort by Republicans to affirm Trump’s so called One Big Beautiful Bill Act and return it to the House for passage. In order to overcome objections, Senate Republicans engaged in an exercise of budget chicanery that deliberately ignored Senate rules and precedent related to the Budget reconciliation process. They simply changed the rules for calculating the budget and decided that, because the tax cuts the bill proposed had already been put into effect since 2017, they ought to no longer be calculated as adding to the deficit moving forward. The bill clearly adds $4.5 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, but after their sleight of hand, Republicans claimed that $3.8 trillion of that amount “didn’t count.”

The fact that supposedly honest and competent senators could propose such a scheme and not raise the alarm and ire of the public is testimony to the outlandishly sheepish nature of the Republican Party. As economists have observed, this move is equivalent to asserting that just because I’m used to paying my Xfinity bill, my decision to renew my contract for another three years will cost me nothing. It’s pure nonsense – a boldfaced deception. Even more so when it comes from the party that supposedly is especially committed to trimming the deficit. That kind of behavior deserves critique of the first order, especially from Christ followers who are committed to truthfulness in all of their dealings. And how has the Evangelical Community responded thus far? Crickets.

On July 3^rd at a purportedly bipartisan “Salute to America” event in Iowa, President Trump declared to a raucous and decidedly partisan crowd, “They wouldn’t vote [for the spending bill], only because they hate Trump. But I hate them, too. You know that? I really do. I hate them. I cannot stand them, because I really do believe they hate our country.”

In our present political environment, the gravity of that statement may be lost on us, but that was actually the first time in history that a president of the United States has openly declared his hatred of the opposition party. Past presidents may have felt similar emotions—they may have been provoked to wrath in private. But presidents up till now have recognized their calling to unite the nation and have refrained from such incendiary rhetoric. Not Trump. Instead, he seems to enjoy launching himself into the fray. That tendency seems particularly unwise considering the reality that a Minnesota state representative and her husband were murdered just three weeks ago in what appears to be a politically motivated attack.

I can almost see the eye-rolls of some of my MAGA friends and colleagues right now. “Give me a break,” they might argue. “Trump is admittedly a blowhard who specializes in bombast. Everyone knows that. Like Trump himself asserted the other day, we ought to give him some room to be sarcastic!”

To that I counter: Trump is the one who chose to make the issue all about him. His claim that Democrats refused to vote for this bill (one that will result in between 12-17 million losing their health insurance and that facilitates a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest 20% in America to the richest) because they “hate Trump” is a narcissistic delusion. His deliberate effort to villainize the Democratic Party is far from sarcastic. Liberal democracies are built upon the foundation of mutual respect between political opponents who disagree with each other. Civility toward those who disagree is not only a characteristic of Christ followers, it is a hallmark of democratic dialogue. Trump actively seeks to dismantle respect and weaponize distrust. By his telling, anyone who disagrees with him “hates Trump.”

After 10 full years during which Trump has dominated the political landscape, the events of the past week should not surprise me. The way the majority of my Christian friends are responding to such nonsense, however, continues to astound. According to Pew Research, “Around seven-in-ten White evangelicals rate the ethics of top Trump administration officials as good (35%) or excellent (34%). By contrast, among the public overall, most (62%) rate the ethics of the Trump administration as only fair or poor.” The way I interpret that, my unbelieving friends and neighbors have a better nose for the Trump administration’s lack of ethical foundation than do my own brothers and sisters in Christ. Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have not only taken over the GOP; they have reshaped the Evangelical Church. That reshaping is profoundly demonstrated in their (our) willingness to normalize unethical behavior.

Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. (Jeremiah 6:15)

Back in the 90’s, during his last decade on earth, my dad was often asked to preach from a sermon series he entitled “The Human Face of God.” In it, he examined some of the uncommon anthropomorphisms in Scripture and expounded on what they tell us about the God’s character. “When God Spits,” “When God Laughs,” and “When God Winks” were some of the titles. The one that always struck me the hardest was “When God Blushed.” In that sermon Dad spoke about the human propensity to grow accustomed to sin—to become so habituated to wantonness that we don’t even blush at the things that cause God to blush.

I have often thought about that sermon and its present day applicability during the past decade. Humans normalize sin for a variety of reasons: to justify what they find pleasurable, for example, or to defend questionable actions taken out of self-interest. The justifications flow quite readily. “Others do even worse,” we might argue. Or, “I’m fighting for a just cause.”

The contention that the ends justify the means has gained quite a following among Evangelicals during the Trump era. How often have you heard, “We’re not electing a pastor—we’re electing a president! In our corrupt political environment, we don’t need a leader who pussy foots around. We need a leader who is willing to get his hands dirty.” By means of that excuse, all manner of bad behavior is justified. Those who shouted most loudly that “character matters” during the Clinton administration now embrace Trump, not simply in spite of his character flaws, but because of them.

I understand his appeal. Trump’s colloquial, meandering speaking style definitely has an “everyman” quality to it. Though his cynical, mocking air appalls me, his sense of humor is intriguing and his quips are often masterfully timed. He mysteriously invokes the impression that he understands your pain, even though he himself has led an exceedingly charmed existence.

In spite of his remarkable advantages, however, he remains willfully vindictive, spiteful, capricious, and transactional in the extreme. What may have shocked us in the early stages of Trump’s political career is now simply another expression of the Trump brand. The normalization follows a predictable pattern: At first, puzzlement over condemnable behavior, which then gives way to excusing it and eventually becomes a full throated acceptance. In the first Trump campaign, his “locker room talk” at first gave my fellow Christians pause, but they soon graduated to “the perfect phone call” with Zelenskyy, then to fully embracing the election lie and, when Trump left office, to doubling down on the “big lie” and to calling the intruders at the Capitol “patriots.”

In the second presidency, the wheels are already greased. There is not even the hint of a blush when Trump fires the Inspectors General, spirits immigrants away to El Salvador in the middle of the night without affording them due process, calls for judges who oppose him to be impeached, and actively defies court orders. Evangelicals, who have long prided themselves on being proponents of law and order, now aggressively support a president when he defies the constitutional rule of law.

The Steady Descent into Hypocrisy

I contend that the Evangelical Church has fallen prey to a grave deception. Trump knew and understood our longing to “influence the culture.” He has successfully harnessed that desire to the MAGA populist agenda. Evangelicals who have long sought after people of influence who could shape cultural norms in keeping with their value system were quick to go along, perhaps oblivious to the dark quest for power inherent in Trump’s movement (or perhaps deliberately embracing it). Evangelicals have acquiesced to the aspirations of “the MAGA tribe,” so much so that they no longer recognize how profoundly the tribe parts ways with Jesus. A few strategically placed buzzwords—abortion rights, transgender participants in sports, or “the woke agenda”—are sufficient to lull them into believing that Trump and Jesus are on the same team.

The Church’s failed moral leadership regarding the MAGA agenda is not simply a political matter. It has far reaching spiritual ramifications. The legitimacy of the Church’s witness is at stake. Many who might have been spiritually open to Christianity are asking the question, “If Christians are gullible enough to fall for Trump’s self-serving lies that he won the 2020 election, why should I trust what they have to say about ultimate matters of life after death?” In point of fact, Evangelicals have shown themselves to be especially vulnerable to Trump’s authoritarian leanings and have are all too willing to surrender cherished democratic principles such as the separation of powers. We see it played out in real time. The deafening drumbeat of Trump’s claims of government fraud and incompetence combined with his flood of executive orders has numbed our ability to discern the true facts on the ground. The Trump playbook, as famously articulated by Steve Bannon, is to “flood the zone with sh__.” Our nation now finds itself buried in it.

Trusting a treacherous person at a difficult time is like having a bad tooth or a wobbly foot. (Proverbs 25:19)

One of the more remarkable examples of how the Church has been willing to shift its loyalty relates to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The majority opinion among Evangelicals in 2022 was a robust denunciation of Russia’s militancy and robust praise for the resilient Ukrainians. Trump, on the other hand, has always expressed skepticism toward Ukraine. He continuously redacted his lackluster support for its democratically elected leadership until it devolved into an outright defense of the Russian point of view. On the three-year anniversary of Russia’s attack, the US ambassador to the UN voted with Russia and North Korea against impugning Russia with the full blame for the war. Shortly thereafter, our Commander in Chief ordered our government to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine. This policy change, though ultimately rescinded, resulted in hundreds of additional casualties according to Ukrainian officials. One officer stated bluntly, “This is not politics – this is treachery!”

Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, in an utter revocation of Reagan foreign policy, regularly parrots Russian talking points that Ukraine is responsible for the continuation of the war. And Republican lawmakers hardly blinked last week when Hegseth, apparently without consulting the president (think about that for a moment!), canceled an approved shipment of Patriot missiles that are essential to Ukraine’s air defense.

Speaking of Hegseth, allow me a brief aside. Imagine, if you will, that you fill the shoes of 4-star General Charles Q. Brown, Jr. All your adult life you have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for leadership in what many consider to be the most prestigious meritocracy in the world—the United States military. You now enjoy the untarnished affirmation of your peers and your country as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If any job on the planet could be described as having been earned, it is this one.

Then, Trump is elected to his second term. The person who he appoints as your new boss is not only your inferior in respect to his rank, he is your inferior in every aspect of his character. He is a known philanderer (adultery is a betrayal of the military code of conduct), a known drunkard, and a known misogynist. He possesses no strategic expertise that qualifies him to lead 1.3 million active duty personnel. His only qualifications appear to be his square jaw that looks good on television combined with his willingness to support Trump’s every whim, even when it runs contrary to the constitution.

Then, imagine that the newly reelected president fires you in the middle of your four-year term. He apparently agrees with Hegseth, who had the audacity to write this about the circumstances of your appointment: “Was it because of his skin color? Or his skill? We’ll never know, but always doubt.” Coming from a man who never advanced beyond the rank of captain while serving in the United States Army but now serves as Secretary of Defense, the hypocrisy of this statement is as laughable as it is tragic. It ought to make our skin crawl. But did Republican lawmakers stand up in defense of a Black four-star general who was highly respected by his fellow officers? We know the answer to that. They did, however, insist (without evidence) that Hegseth had reformed his ways and could be trusted not to drink on this job. They have forgotten how to blush.

Returning to Trump’s Ukraine policy, it is impossible to imagine that Evangelicals during the Reagan era might have remained silent if the US ambassador to the UN aligned with the Soviet Union and against free Europe! And yet, here we are. Christian believers, of all people, ought to understand that treaties are akin to covenants. They are not merely transactional arrangements, as Trump seems to see them. We dare not forget that the US engaged in a Trilateral Agreement (covenant) with Russia and Ukraine promising to stand up for Ukraine’s independence in exchange for Ukraine’s willingness to give up its nuclear arsenal (the third largest in the world at that time). A covenant to defend implies that a nation will offer assistance regardless of whether or not it receives a calculable benefit. Our European allies recognize how dangerous the world is if NATO treaty agreements aren’t taken seriously. Christians who know from their scriptures what a covenant entails, ought to be troubled, as well.

Conclusion: A Call to Righteous Resistance

Centuries ago the prophet Jeremiah, at risk to his own life, boldly spoke words of harsh rebuke to a nation that purported to obey Yahweh but were in fact only loyal to their own best interests.

“From the least to the greatest,
    all are greedy for gain;
prophets and priests alike,
    all practice deceit.
They dress the wound of my people
    as though it were not serious.
‘Peace, peace,’ they say,
    when there is no peace.
Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct?
    No, they have no shame at all;
    they do not even know how to blush.”

The Evangelical Church in America must recover its prophetic voice. We are called to be a people who mourn over sin rather than rationalize it—who stand for truth even when it is politically costly. We presently have a president who lies without blushing and threatens to “primary” any Republican lawmaker who dares to publicly disagrees with him. Sadly, many Christ followers have not only become numb to his bullying behavior, they have appropriated it. Our witness has been tarnished not because we engage in politics, but because we do so without discernment and without humility. We excuse what Christ would confront and embrace leaders whose character contradicts what Christ commands.

This is not just a political crisis—it is a spiritual one. The moral confusion of the Evangelical Church has become so entrenched that many no longer recognize it as such. Having accepted our tribe’s partisan point of view, we vilify “the other” as the enemy—considering them unworthy of our respect. Christ’s clarion call to “love your enemies” and “do good to those who despitefully use you” fails to land in our hearts. Evangelical cockiness is all too familiar to the people around us. Job’s sarcastic complaint to his comforters could aptly be levied at us: “Doubtless you are the only people who matter, and wisdom will die with you!” (Job 12:2)

I am not contending that Evangelicals ought to abandon the Republican Party. I am simply pleading for a more critical approach. Our willingness to look the other way when Trump and his administration clearly violate both constitutional and God ordained moral law serves neither our nation nor its leadership. Regaining our prophetic voice will only happen when we rediscover what it means to be ashamed of sin, including our own. When we learn once again how to blush.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/28/white-evangelicals-continue-to-stand-out-in-their-support-for-trump/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/politics/hegseth-did-not-inform-white-house-ukraine-weapons-pause

https://time.com/7265679/satellites-front-failing-hundreds-dead-fallout-trump-ukraine-aid-pause/

The Trilateral Process: The United States, Ukraine, Russia and Nuclear Weapons

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/falling-for-putin/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/01/28/g-s1-45030/pepfar-trump-drugs-stop-work

Why Voting for a Platform Rather Than a Person Doesn’t Accomplish What We Hope It Will

My last blog incited considerable reaction and feedback. I’m very grateful that so many of you engaged with me. It indicates that people haven’t simply succumbed to indifference. You definitely care about the election results and you care about truth based on evidence.

Of course, where we mine our evidence significantly impacts the conclusions we come to. And you who read my blog represent a broad spectrum of our citizenry. Quite obviously some readers are mining their data from quite different sources than I am. Although I don’t concur with the post-modern tenet that “all truth claims are power claims,” I must admit that the premise seems validated in the current social climate. Assertions about what is really going on in this election are bandied about like so many badminton shuttlecocks, each ferociously spiked with the confidence of absolute certainty. In the end, the conclusion one reaches depends upon which side of the court they prefer.

The vehemence with which someone asserts their opinion is by no means an indicator of its truthfulness. It is, however, very likely to be an indicator of the group to which they belong. I may be convinced of the truthfulness of certain “facts,” but convincing another person of my point of view will depend precious little upon my ability to articulate those facts in a cogent manner. That is especially true if I am an outsider to the group that defines their identity. The only chance for me to gain a hearing is if they perceive me as a likeable person and an honest broker.

In an over-saturated information society, accepted orthodoxy can change incredibly quickly. A few seeds of doubt, cunningly placed within a Tweet, can shake previously held beliefs that were considered rock solid (especially if the Tweet came from my side). A commitment to evidence based reasoning requires that people check sources and, just as important, refuse to pass along rumors. But that virtue is in short supply. Context matters and sound bites (or video clips) divorced from context can be distorted in order to imply all manner of untruth. That is why the character of those who govern is ultimately decisive.

Political parties coalesce around a set of policy initiatives that they prefer. Legislators and executives then try to implement those policies through the democratic process. The extent to which leaders are able to put them into action, however, is more dependent upon their personal character than it is upon the compelling logic of the platform. That is because the power of a platform does not reside in the words on paper, but in their implementation.

For example, much attention has been given to Harris’s flip-flop regarding fracking policy. Five years ago as a candidate for the Democratic nomination, Harris stated, “There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” But since her nomination in 2024, Harris contends, “As vice president, I did not ban fracking; as president, I will not ban fracking.” She argues that the policy plank has not changed, but that she now understands that it is not necessary to ban fracking and still wholeheartedly pursue a clean energy economy.

On the other hand, the Republican “law and order” platform proved to be quite malleable by Trump’s interpretation. Shortly after the assault on the law enforcement officers at the Capitol on January 6^th, Trump described it as “a heinous attack” but tried to square the blame on purported infiltrators of the rally. After the original deflection proved to be untenable, Trump’s account of the day morphed into a “peaceful and patriotic” walk to the Capitol. Most recently in his Univision town hall interview, it emerged as “a day of love.” All the while, the party’s law and order platform plank supposedly remained unscathed.

These examples illustrate a key principle: The how is often more impactful than the what. If a party platform is wielded by leaders who lack solid ethical grounding, the temptation to appropriate “the end justifies the means” thinking will be difficult to resist. Lying, unfair deal-making, and demonizing the opponent are rationalized as legitimate means to an end. But a democratic system depends upon the ability of leaders to engage with those who disagree with them in order to reach constructive compromise. That can only happen if each side believes that the others are negotiating in good faith. Trustworthiness remains an essential element of that exchange. And the extent to which leaders bind themselves to the discipline of truth-telling depends upon their ability to place the interests of others before their own. This is a central tenet of Christian ethics –“not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” It is also, according to Jesus, the first duty of leadership. “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them … Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”

Years ago, Robert Greenleaf argued convincingly that the servant leader is not only a model for leadership within the Christian Church, but has broad applicability in the public sector, including politics. I was reminded of that fact when I read Tom Nichols’ fascinating essay in the November issue of The Atlantic. Nichols, a fine scholar of history who taught for years at the U.S. Naval War College, documents the essential elements of character that made George Washington’s presidency so remarkable and so foundational. Nichols then contrasts those character qualities with those that Trump manifests, particularly in respect to the result of the 2020 election. Nichols points to three pivotal qualities of our first president’s character.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/george-washington-nightmare-donald-trump/679946/

First, Washington was committed to being a citizen, not a Caesar. Although Alexander Hamilton wrote that Washington became a figure “to whom the world is offering incense,” the General refused to accept special privileges that others wanted to bestow upon him. He expected the same of the soldiers who served in his army, insisting that they must conduct themselves as those who after the war would live side by side with the people they were now defending. He resisted their efforts to dispossess the population of food supplies even though it meant severe deprivation on the part of his troops.

In contrast, Nichols observes, Trump tried to treat the military as his own militia. He often publicly referred to “my generals” and was even prepared to turn their might against the American people, asking General Mark Milley to use force to disband protestors near the White House in 2020. “Beat the fuck out of them,” Trump instructed Milley. After leaving office Trump’s second Chief of Staff, John Kelly, described Trump as a “person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about.”

Second, George Washington was a man in command of himself. Nichols writes that “he was at times seized by vanity, anxiety, and private grievances. He was moody. His occasional burst of temper could be fearsome.” Nevertheless, he remained “keenly aware” of his own shortcomings. “He rarely allowed his pride to congeal into arrogance, nor his insecurities to curdle into self-pity.” His stoic character helped him to avoid the trap of unproductive public wrangling.

Trump, on the other hand, deliberately makes his grievances public. And he invites the public to be aggrieved along with him. An aggrieved public provides Trump with the opportunity to fill a role that uniquely suits him. “I am your retribution,” Trump has frequently proclaimed. I know this sounds snarky, but I think it fits: apparently Trump misidentified the one speaking in the Bible passage, “Vengeance is mine.”

Third, Nichols points out one of the most important lessons from Washington’s legacy. In the words of John Kelly, “He went home.” Washington resisted the pressure from without and from within to turn the president into a king. He willingly and graciously stepped down from office, a step that was without precedent in Washington’s world. He thus became a model and example for all the nations that would follow in the pathway of democracy and for every American president who would succeed him. Until number forty-five.

If a voter dismisses character as the most significant element in their choice, they choose to invest power in a person who does know how to wield it. The President of the United States does not merely (or even primarily) press a policy agenda based on a party platform. A president must respond to unexpected crises such as the COVID pandemic or the invasion of Ukraine or increasing ballistic missile launches from North Korea or an escalating war in the Middle East. The president plays a major role in setting the tone of the nation in moments of crisis. The president assists in bringing competing political parties together in order to pursue the common good.

A voter must ask the question, which candidate is, by virtue of character, better suited to respond wisely in moments of crisis? Which candidate is more likely to seek competent counsel? Which candidate is more likely to lay personal benefit aside for the sake of the greater good? Which candidate is more likely to take personal responsibility for failed policy decisions?

Some readers will answer each of those questions in the affirmative for Donald Trump. When made out of conviction, I respect their choice. I understand that the issues in this election are exceedingly complex and sincere people will come to different conclusions. That is how democracy works.

Other readers will raise the legitimate criticism that I have not said a word about the deficits in Kamala Harris’ character. I do not argue that Harris as a candidate is unimpugnable. Instead, I argue that Harris is a normal candidate cut from a typical mold of public servants who have deeply held policy positions but who honor the constitution above party or personal benefit. Trump, on the other hand, is an atypical candidate who has demonstrated by his actions that he does not honor the constitution above his personal interests and is willing to pervert it if it serves him.

Each voter must decide to whom they listen. I have chosen to listen to individuals who worked closely with Trump during his presidency. General John Kelly and General Mark Milley—disciplined military men with a stellar record of public service—have declared that Trump is a danger to our democracy. Fully half of his cabinet members while he held office and multiple high-level staffers have documented their refusal to support him. His own Vice President says that he should not be entrusted with the presidency again.

The subtitle of Nichols’ essay declares: “Donald Trump is the tyrant the first president feared.” Washington understood the fickleness of the human condition. He recognized that, “amid constant political warfare, some citizens would come to ‘seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual’ and that eventually a demagogue would exploit that sentiment.” I am reminded of a recent conversation with one of my German friends. He explained to me that he had often asked himself over the years, “What is it that made the German people uniquely susceptible to Hitler’s deception. What is wrong with us?” Now Trump’s persistent influence in American politics has caused him to recognize that the fault lies not in the German heart, but in the human heart. All peoples are susceptible to authoritarian seduction.

Nichols concludes his essay with the observation that “Some Americans seem unable to accept how much peril they face should Trump return.” I write this in order to urge those few voters who are still undecided to carefully consider that peril. Trump’s character deficits will cost the nation dearly if he is reelected.

Any Coherent Christian Rationale to Vote for Candidate Trump Has Evaporated

Since you’re still reading this after seeing the title, thanks for being willing to consider my argument. For those who reached the same conclusion months or years ago, I hope that my thoughts resonate with you. But the group I would especially like to address are the Christians who believe that a biblical world view should inform our politics and who voted for Trump in previous elections for the sake of Christian principles. Though I have never voted for Trump, I believe that you and I share very similar core values. My interpretation of those values has led me, a life-long Republican, to once again abandon the Republican nominee. I write this in order to entreat you to seriously consider taking the same step.

I remember the days when Republicans asserted that the character of a leader mattered more than party affiliation. In the name of “character matters,” they agreed with Democrats to seek the impeachment of President Nixon. He knew they would follow through on that commitment and stepped down from office before it could happen. In the name of “character matters,” Republicans declared President Clinton unfit for office and voted to impeach him. With President Trump, the logic twisted. And thousands of Church leaders and self-professed moral crusaders have gone so far as to herald Donald Trump as “God’s anointed.”

The nature of the current presidential campaign is indeed unprecedented. Never before has a presidential nominee faced a litany of felony charges while at the same time running for office. Never before has a plethora of current and former leaders within a political party endorsed the opponent’s nominee because they consider their own nominee to be not only unfit to hold office, but to pose a genuine threat to the democratic process. And never before has the conservative Christian coalition of voters stood so steadfastly behind a candidate who demonstrates core character qualities that are opposed to the fruit of the Spirit.

I have written in previous blogs about how we got to this point. The political right-wing has for decades preached the doctrine that conservatives are an abused class, mocked by the political left and misrepresented in the so called “mainstream media.” When I read or listen to right-wing news sources, I understand why the sense of grievance has grown. The charge that “everything is rigged against us” is relentless and works its way under the skin. Trump, more than any politician before him, harnessed that grievance to his advantage. Conservative Christians, who are often quick to identify evidence of religious persecution from their fellow citizens and political leaders, were predisposed to Trump’s messaging.

Trump also harnessed the theologically conservative Church’s opposition to abortion (even though Trump’s personal stance on the subject wavers according to the context he finds himself in). I have many friends who voted for Trump largely because they anticipated that his Supreme Court nominations would overturn Roe v. Wade. I admit that the constant drumbeat of “protecting women’s reproductive rights” from the Democratic ticket wears on my spirit. I maintain the conviction that the fetus is not a part of the mother’s body, but a developing human person in its own right. Like many of my Christian brothers and sisters, I believe that placing some restrictions on abortion is a valid and just expression of public policy. But Trump’s opposition to abortion remains politically motivated, at best. And now he sees fit to pull back from the topic and “let the states decide.”

Abortion is an important moral issue and government’s role in restricting it will continue to be debated. What should not be up for debate, however, is the peaceful transfer of power under constitutional law. Despite the revisionist history that the MAGA movement would thrust upon us, Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to overthrow a valid election. He did so in the plain sight of the American people. He continues to assert baseless claims of election fraud to this very day. No matter what policy planks you may favor or what party you prefer, Donald Trump is not a credible option as a candidate for president. He broke his covenant to defend and protect the constitution of the United States. That disqualifies him. Regardless of whatever else he may claim.

When Jack Smith’s Immunity Filing was released this week, the degree to which it impacted you probably depends upon your previously held convictions. For those who followed the January 6^th Committee hearings two years ago, there were no bomb-shell revelations in this filing. It simply served as a confirmation of the testimony given under oath in the hearings. The filing is indeed remarkable, however, in that it relies on the sworn testimony of multiple Trump administration insiders who did not testify in the January 6^th congressional hearings, including testimony from former Vice President Pence.

Click to access jack-smith-immunity-filing.pdf

It continues to shock me that the findings of the January 6^th Committee are so easily swept aside by so many of my fellow believers. Therefore, I would like to make one last appeal before the next election: please read the Filing on Presidential Immunity. Smith was asked to file this brief because of the Supreme Court’s recent decision granting the US president presumed immunity for “official acts” while performing the duties of the presidency. At the court’s behest, Smith responded to the question of whether Trump’s behavior on and leading up to January 6^th constituted official acts or acts as a candidate for office. Smith’s filing gives us a unique window into Trump’s mindset and behavior by recounting examples from the testimony of subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury.

Whether or not Trump ever faces trial as a defendant for his criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election depends upon the result of the election on November 5^th. But Christians who hold that “righteousness exalts a nation” (Proverbs 13:34) must make a decision based on the best available evidence. Smith’s document, though somewhat technical, is eminently readable. I recommend reading Section I which gives the outline of the government’s case. It takes up the first 85 pages, but double spaced and with abundant footnotes, it goes pretty fast. It offers compelling evidence that the former president knew that he had lost the election and nonetheless proceeded to push various theories of how the vote could be declared illegitimate. In Smith’s words:

Following election day and throughout the charged conspiracies, the defendant, his co-conspirators, and their agents spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election, and that he had actually won. These lies included dozens of specific claims that there had been substantial fraud in certain states, such as that large numbers of dead, nonresident, non-citizen, or otherwise ineligible voters had cast ballots, or that voting machines had changed votes for the defendant to votes for Biden. And the defendant and co-conspirators continue to make these unsupported, objectively unreasonable, and ever changing claims even after they had been publicly disproven, or after advisors had directly informed the defendant that they were untrue. (page 10)

The document goes on to cite multiple specific conversations and activities witnessed by Trump officials that confirm this judgment. It offers clear and compelling evidence that Trump began a program of disinformation months before the election. (To cite one example, at the Republican National Convention, he brazenly contended, “The only way they can take this election away from us is if this is a rigged election.”) Smith’s filing demonstrates that Trump was intimately involved in each step of the conspiracy: the spurious arguments in the courts alleging fraud, the fake elector scheme, the pressure on Pence to refuse to allow the electoral votes to be certified, right down to the physical assault on the capitol. Many of the details are chilling. In response to an aid, informing Trump that his tweets regarding Pence were endangering the vice president’s life, Trump allegedly replied, “So what?”

In our highly polarized political environment, I realize that your gut level response to that revelation may be the all too common, “Fake news!” But allow me to reiterate: the document lays out the merits of the government’s case against Trump on the basis of sworn testimony. The charges that are brought rely on witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the events, not hearsay evidence. Upon their testimony it becomes abundantly clear that Trump knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud the citizens of the United States of their votes.

Admittedly, the case has not been tried in a court of law. If it reaches trial, it is likely that Trump’s defense will be that he was merely going along with the advice of his lawyers and that he truly believed the narrative about massive election fraud. We may never see the day in court, but I urge you to read the document and judge the weight of the testimony for yourself. Because of the High Court’s ruling regarding immunity, we have the rare privilege of getting a bird’s eye view of the prosecution’s case before it goes to trial. I contend that responsible voters who care about Christian principles have a responsibility before God to read the credible source material.

A few weeks ago I came across this verse in my daily reading: “If a ruler listens to falsehood, all his officials will be wicked.” (Proverbs 29:12) The passage declares the inevitable moral deterioration that occurs within a government when those in authority willfully embrace a lie. Not only the ruler is affected, but all his officials along with him. The proverb is, of course, a hyperbolic statement. Not every single official will necessarily succumb. But there exists an inexorable tendency for corruption to spread. Every bold lie adds to the superstructure. Every claim of being treated unfairly supports the prevailing victim narrative.

The MAGA movement under Trump has effectively overwhelmed the old guard Republican Party. As evidenced in J. D. Vance’s unwillingness to admit in the debate last Tuesday that Joseph Biden is the rightfully elected president of the United States, the lie of a stolen election has become party orthodoxy. Those who, immediately following January 6th, declared that Trump’s incitement of an insurrection was a bridge too far are now either absent from the party or have succumbed to the party narrative. “All his officials [have] become wicked.”

I submit that the most responsible choice for Christian Republicans in the upcoming election is to join Elizabeth Cheney and countless other Republicans and vote for the Harris/Walz ticket. Not because we are convinced that the Democratic Party has the best ideas, but because we recognize that Donald Trump is a “splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it!” (2 Kings 18:21)

I still have hope for the Republican Party, but not so long as Trump is the party leader. I have proudly witnessed the bravery of various former Trump administrative officials and Republican leaders who are standing up for principle over party. It seems to me, they represent the most sane and capacious minds in my party—those least driven by an insider mentality. They are also the most hopeful. Sadly however, many of those who stand on principle have been driven from office by an electorate that is drunk on Trump wizardry. The only real hope for the Republican party is an exorcism of Trump’s lies. And that will only happen if he and those who amplify his deceit are soundly defeated at the polling places.

Liz Cheney spoke to her fellow Republicans at the Kamala Harris rally in Ripon, Wisconsin:

So help us right the ship of our democracy, so that history will say of us, “When our time of testing came, we did our duty and we prevailed because we loved our country more.”

Let us join her in that unprecedented but necessary path. I am convinced that my Christian duty demands it.