I have engaged in several frustrating online conversations recently where conservatives have emphatically insisted that Brett Kavanaugh’s “right” to be judged innocent until proven guilty is being trampled on by recent events at the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Let’s think about this accusation slowly and logically for a moment, setting the hyperventilating aside. We will take one step at a time:
Yes, people who are charged with a crime in this country have the right to be considered “innocent until proven guilty.” This is a fundamental principle
Blind justice
of American jurisprudence. And THAT is the realm of its proper application – at trial in the courtroom. Consequently, the prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defense. The prosecutor must persuade a jury that the accused is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The issue that conservatives and Republicans are now protesting is very different. They are concerned with the habit of putting people accused of crimes on trial in the “court of public opinion.” That is a very long-standing problem in American public life with a history long ante-dating the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
This unfortunate problem has intensified with the rise of mass media, particularly in early newspapers. By far, the leading contemporary culprit in this regard was Nancy Grace, host of a TV show by the same name on the HLN network. Grace consistently insisted on the guilt of every person accused of a crime, long before any trial began. Worse yet, she never apologized or admitted her errors when those falsely accused19 June 2006 – New York, New York – Nancy Grace. The 2006 American Women in Radio & Television’s Gracie Allen Awards Gala held at the Marriott Marquis. Photo Credit: Paul Hawthorne/AdMedia *** Local Caption *** (Newscom TagID: admphotos091437) [Photo via Newscom]admphotos091437_amp_GracieAllen06_037.JPGwere finally proven innocent. I suggest that any and all conservative fans of Nancy Grace now defending Brett Kavanaugh publicly denounce Nancy Grace and the HLN network with the same vigor they apply to lamenting the Judiciary Committee’s current “injustice.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is not a court of law. What may be happening in public opinion and what is happening in those Senate hearings are two completely different things. No one’s legal rights are being violated, one way or the other. There certainly are important concerns about kindness, honesty, humanity, consideration, and prejudice. But none of those issues touches on anyone’s legal standing or their status as innocent until proven guilty when testifying before the Senate Committee.
Therefore, all those folks yelling and screaming about the violation of Kavanaugh’s “legal rights” are no different from the elderly card player who jumped up and yelled “gin rummy, gin rummy” in the middle of a poker game. It grabs attention, but it is not relevant. It’s the wrong concern in the wrong setting.
As a matter of fact, complaining about Kavanaugh’s rights is a wonderful (and sadly effective) distraction from the real matters at hand. Frankly, I suspect that the closeted authors of Republican talking-points – which we know are distributed immediately to Fox News anchors – landed on this particular protest strategy for this very reason. It is a distraction that diverts public attention from the real issues.
Not only is this misapplication of legal language a distraction, it also serves as a roundabout way of minimizing, to the point of eventually dismissing, Christine Ford’s story of sexual assault. It’s as if the Senate Committee were a court of law, and Kavanaugh’s lawyer (that is, all of his Republican advocates) were standing on their feet yelling, “I object! I object!” in the middle of Dr. Ford’s testimony.
In this way, Dr. Ford’s words are drowned out by the cleverly manipulative tactics of an illegitimate “opposing counsel,” with the ridiculousness only appearing when sensible people recall that this is not a trial; we are not in court. A huge, collective hand is being forced over Dr. Ford’s mouth, stifling her attempts to speak. The alleged rape victim is being shouted down once again, this time with words that sound ever-so official, professional, informed, compelling, reasonable, irrefutable – but it is a sham. It is ignorant. It is manipulative. It is nothing other than a strong-arm attempt (ever so sincerely) to tell another woman to sit down and shut up. These people are the modern-day equivalents of snake oil salesmen, dressed up to look like doctors, spoutin’ highfalutin, medical jargon that adds up to the fatuous equivalent of chewing tobacco prescribed for brain cancer.
Of course, none of these ill-legal analysts have an answer for what other options Christian Ford might have taken. She contacted her local congresswoman and conveyed her story long before Kavanaugh was even nominated, while he was still only a new name on the short-list, in fact. Yes, she asked to remain anonymous, but what the congresswoman, or later, Senator Feinstein, did with her complaint was beyond her control. So, now we should tell her that she has no business telling her story because the powers-that-be waited till they did to release her story to the press?
Yes, it would have been better had the news of her story been circulated earlier than it was. Better yet, it would have been wonderful had the Senate Committee asked the FBI to investigate her charges immediately. But, for whatever reasons, those things did not happen. So, now she should not have the opportunity to speak out because the timing is inconvenient for the Republican, public relations machine?
Both Republicans and Democrats must share the blame for the messiness surrounding these Committee hearings, but anyone who has followed the timeline carefully can only conclude that the lion’s share of the circus atmosphere is due to Republican power-mongering.
The Republicans have done everything possible to conclude Kavanaugh’s appointment before the midterm elections. Mitch McConnell has stated openly that his proudest moment as Senate majority leader was the derailment of president Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Now is his long-awaited opportunity to conclude that intensely partisan reappointment process with another conservative judge.
This is why McConnell initially urged Trump NOT to nominate Kavanaugh in the first place. McConnell complained to Trump that, with the Kavanaugh’s long history in Republican politics, his paper trail was so incredibly voluminous that the Committee would never be able to digest all the documentation and complete the confirmation process before the upcoming midterms. But Trump nominated Kavanaugh anyway.
Consequently, the Republicans have done everything possible to cram this nominee through to a final Senate vote as quickly as possible, regardless of the manipulation or dishonesty required to do it. These hearings have been sabotaged from the outset by an unreasonably short time-frame, controlled by Republicans who would not allow any new or unexpected information to be submitted, no matter how important it might be.
Thus, if Kavanaugh and the Republicans look like petulant little kids caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they have no one to blame but themselves. The sole desire of Senators Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Cornyn and Cruz has been to get another conservative Republican on the Supreme Court bench by hook or by crook before they (conceivably) lose their Senate majority. Damn the truth; damn fair-play; damn an honest hearing process; damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead!
The result has been, damn Christine Blasey Ford; Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty!
Caitlin Johnstone has a good discussion at her blog “Rogue Journalist” of why we rarely ever hear politicians apologize for anything, no matter how outlandish. It is a timely piece, well worth considering at this moment.
I have copied an excerpt below. You can read the entire piece here.
“…in the highest levels of the most powerful governments on earth, where thousands of human lives can be snuffed out by a single unwise decision and ecosystems and economies destroyed on a whim, apologies are almost unheard of. You only ever see them when a leader is cornered in a complete political checkmate with no other options available to them.
“This is because the highest levels of the most powerful governments in the world are dominated by highly manipulative people. If you serve truth, humanity and the world, you are almost certainly delightful to be around and you will almost certainly never have a career in federal politics. The system is set up to serve a ruling class of plutocrats and their lackeys, so the way to get to the top of the political ladder is in the exact opposite direction of serving the weak and defenseless and being truthful and compassionate. To win elections you first need to win the blessing of the ruling class, and the way to do that is by kissing the right asses while regurgitating the right sound bytes whenever the cameras are rolling.
“This is why all the top career politicians all seem so fake; the Hillary Clintons, Ted Cruzes and Nancy Pelosis didn’t get to where they’re at by serving truth and justice, they got there by manipulating and deceiving in the service of the powerful. They are not interested in honesty and sincerity, they are interested in getting up another rung on the ladder.
“Anyone who has ever had a close relationship with someone who is highly manipulative has probably noticed how they never apologize for anything if they can avoid it, but if you apologize to a manipulator for something they will never, ever let you forget it and will bring it up any time you step out of line…”
Sound familiar?
Notice that Donald Trump did not apologize to the ABC reporter he cruelly mocked yesterday at his press conference.
Do you think he has called Dr. Ford to apologize for the way he ridiculed her today at a campaign rally in Mississippi?
I am certain you can come up with numerous, relevant examples of your own…
Tintoretto’s portrayal of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet
For those who follow Jesus, the issue involves self-examination, confession and repentance. Jesus tells us, not only that we are to confess our specific sins to the Father and ask for forgiveness daily, but that we should go to the one(s) we have sinned against, acknowledge what we have done, and ask for their forgiveness face-to-face.
Let’s not follow the model of those who seek power, but the example of our Lord and Savior who washed the disciples’ feet.
Please take 15 minutes to watch Senator Amy Klobuchar (Dem. MN) provide a clear, straightforward summary of the important issues at stake in the
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D. MN)
contested nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court (watch here).
Yes, the charges of sexual assault are vitally important (see my previous posts here and here), but the Senator also refers to the history of Kavanaugh’s disturbing judicial rulings which have not received anywhere near the attention they deserve.
This is a man who believes that presidents should be exempt from criminal investigation (is this why Trump nominated him despite Senator McConnell’s objections?); supported the use of torture when he was in the George W. Bush administration; endorsed the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision (allowing unlimited, “dark money” political contributions from corporations); supports the Patriot Act (the single most unconstitutional legislation since the Alien & Sedition Act); the mass, warrantless surveillance of the American public; has been hostile to the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and anti-discrimination laws; and has consistently sided with corporations and CEOs against workers and workers’ rights in labor disputes.
Men with power – and partisan women, too – enjoy judging by appearances, telling other people what to do and how they should feel. They especially love to get their own way, preferably without opposition.
Loyal, mindless partisanship precludes the need to evaluate all sides of an argument equally. Why bother with evidence or facts when they can be buried, ignored or shouted down? If an odd malcontent harboring foolish disagreement manages to stand (however briefly) in the way of power, well then, those with the power simply mow them down. Whatever it takes.
Naturally, a clever use of power will dispatch the opposition in ways so seemingly fair and genteel that few observers will notice the stiletto shiv discreetly plunged into the critic’s backside.
That’s the way power works. And power is the main currency in our nation’s capital. For far too many, politics is the dark art of manipulating power for personal gain while wearing the mask of public service.
We are now watching a raw exercise of such partisan power in the nation’s capital.
Dr. Christine Ford has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were in high school together. One might think that this new “era” of the #MeToo movement has sensitized our leaders to these kinds of charges; that such accusations would be taken seriously by all political parties; that people – especially women, for cryin’ out loud – could rise above partisan rancor in order to give an alleged victim the time and space needed to revisit what was probably THE most traumatizing experience of her life.
But, no, not in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ford has agreed to tell her story before the Senate Judiciary Committee, after making one simple request: hoping to avoid an exercise in he-said-
How intimidated would you be sitting before this group, knowing that most of them had already judged you to be a liar?
she-said futility, Ford asked that the committee delay her testimony until after the FBI completes an investigation into her charges.
Not a criminal investigation, mind you, but the sort of inquiry performed for standard, nominee background checks. Yes, Kavanaugh has undergone several of these investigations already, but that is a moot point. The FBI have never been asked to look into this particular charge. And there is no reason to think evidence would have turned up accidentally when they weren’t looking for it.
Dr. Ford’s request sure sounds reasonable to me.
It’s hard to believe that a woman making false accusations would ask for an FBI investigation into her bogus claims as a prelude to being questioned by a (largely hostile) Senate committee while sitting in the hot seat on the national stage.
I can’t imagine that the investigation should be difficult. Others have stepped forward to say that they knew of rumors circulating about such an incident when they were students at the same school. Dr. Ford claims to have sought professional help to cope with the trauma and its psychological aftermath. It wouldn’t be difficult to subpoena the therapist’s records, with Dr. Ford’s consent, in order to learn what was shared in their sessions.
If she is lying, let the investigation unmask her.
Of course, Kavanaugh insists that the alleged assault never happened. Yet, I can’t help but be sympathetic to Dr. Ford.
If the Trump presidency has demonstrated anything, it is that the truth no longer matters to many Americans, not in our capital city, not among our politicians, not for the average Republican, not even within the church.
Lisa Graves, a former Senate staff-worker, has published credible evidence that this would not be the first time Kavanaugh has perjured himself before a Senate committee. Why isn’t that grave allegation being investigated? Because power is never concerned with truthfulness except when it serves the interests of more power. Senate Republicans don’t care about the truth of Brett Kavanaugh. They simply lust for another “win” registered in their party’s column. They are the ones in power.
The evangelical church is no better. In fact, it is far worse. Truth is not a priority to evangelical spokes-people, the mawkish figureheads representing Trump’s most vocal constituency. For instance, if you can bear it, watch Franklin Graham’s shameless, partisan boot-licking in his recent CBN interview. He basically tells Dr. Ford to sit down, shut up, and stop complaining about something that was not a real crime anyway. It’s disgusting and pathetic. His father, Billy, is surely weeping in heaven.
If men and women like Graham are not careful, they will one day find themselves eternally shaken by Jesus’ angry lament, “Get away from me, you evildoers. I never knew you!” (Matthew 7:23).
They are traitors to the kingdom of God, every last one of them. Sycophantic grovelers before a political Moloch, falling over themselves for the privilege of burning their own spiritual children in the political fires of partisan barbarism. They know nothing about Jesus, the ethics of his kingdom, or the superiority of God’s reign on earth.
Every rapist denies the charges brought against him, insisting that he is innocence. In this respect, Kavanaugh is no exception. He is imitating the man who nominated him. They are two peas in a pod.
If he is innocent, let the investigation exonerate him. He should welcome it.
Every victim hesitates to come forward, fearing the harsh gauntlet of public spectacle which so easily morphs into ridicule and character assassination. Dr. Ford and her family are already receiving death threats from Trump stalwarts — and today we have sadly learned that Judge Kavanaugh’s family is also receiving vicious hate mail and threats. Democrats and so-called progressives are every bit as sinful as anybody else. Wickedness knows no political boundaries.
But only Dr. Ford is receiving unsolicited advice about what she should have done when she was a teenager. Yet, grizzled old Senators and shiny news anchors have no business lecturing this woman about what she “should” or “shouldn’t” have done when she was 15 years old.
Senator Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is auditioning for the role of sensitive committee granddad by offering Ford a variety of scenarios where she could tell her story in a one-on-one session along with Kavanaugh next Monday. The problem, however, is that all of Grassley’s options include meeting with the committee before an FBI investigation would be complete.
Republican efforts at painting Dr. Ford as the unreasonable, demanding woman remind me of an old Saturday Night Live sketch with John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd. The two comedians were immigrant brothers, apparently from Greece, operating a greasy spoon diner. The only item on their menu was cheeseburgers. Every customer’s question got the same easy answer:
What’s today’s special? Cheeseburger!
Any desserts? Cheeseburger!
How about side dishes? Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger!
Senate Republicans have only one dish on offer: a Monday, September the 24th cheeseburger. Regardless of Grassley’s superficial attempts to dress it up, his only offer so far is a Monday cheeseburger.
Dr. Ford, however, is declining the Monday cheeseburger. She is asking for an after-the- investigation French dip. It doesn’t sound unreasonable or outlandish to me. Why not wait? (We all know why, actually. Fearing that the midterm elections will strip them of their majority, Republicans are feverishly trying to railroad Kavanaugh’s nomination through while they still have the power).
The truly outlandish aspect of this entire affair is the unmerciful, belittling behavior of those who claim most loudly to speak for God. Listen again to Graham’s interview, if you can, and then pray for his soul.
Where is the voice of God’s prophet today? Who speaks out for true justice, equality, fair-mindedness and generosity? Who stands with the many, many women victimized by sexual assault? Who will defend the weak against the strong? Who will call the rich and powerful to account?
“Whoever justifies the wicked, and the one who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.” (Proverbs 17:15)
“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)
Perhaps you know the parable. How do you boil a frog alive?
Don’t throw the frog into boiling water. It will jump out. Rather, turn a stove burner on to low heat. Fill a kettle with water at room temperature. Put your wiggling, green frog into the kettle. Set the kettle onto the burner. Wait…
Supposedly, as the water temperature slowly rises, the frog – being a cold-blooded creature – will enjoy the sauna without alarm. Eventually, the cooperative frog allows itself to be cooked alive without ever objecting to the rising water temperature.
I have enough of a conscious that I’ve never tested the truth of this parable (have you?), but it serves as a popular warning against the dangerous allurements of compromising one’s conscience. How many compromises does it take before principle and morality become waterlogged labels tossed by deceased idealists into the world’s pragmatic stew called “the ends justify the means?”
I don’t know. Maybe Michael Gerson could tell us.
Gerson, now a columnist with the Washington Post, has become one of president Trump’s most vocal, conservative critics. And I admire him for taking up the cause of repeating out loud that this president has no clothes.
Gerson prints what few other Republicans are willing to say out loud (except behind closed doors). He appears to be working as a conservative conscience (in a kinda, sorta way) for an otherwise fetid Republican party that misplaced its public service conscience years ago – undoubtedly lost in the fancy parlor of some corporate contributor.
A graduate of Wheaton College, Gerson is noteworthy because he claims the mantle of “evangelical Christian” while openly condemning the boot-licking, brown-nosing antics of those religious-right leaders and their millions of followers who boast about their elevated status on Trump’s White House guest list.
In this regard, Gerson certainly has his head screwed on straight. Perhaps he learned a lesson or two from his own time of service in the Bush White House.
GWB : 1630 : Speech Preparations – State of the Union. Oval Office
Gerson was chief speech writer for George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006. From 2000 to 2006 he was also a White House Senior Policy Analyst and a member of Bush’s White House Iraq Group.
The primary purpose of the WHIG was to advance the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan “to sell” the American public on the imaginary threat of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent WMD program. In other words, Gerson was on the president’s marketing team charged with candy-coating one of the most catastrophic, illegal, immoral wars in the history of American foreign policy.
Everyone on that team knew exactly what they were doing.
Here is Paul Waldman’s assessment (in a very cogent article published in
President George W. Bush speaks about Iraq and Afghanistan, January 4, 2006. Standing with Bush from left are National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque – RTR17RZC
This Week) of the work accomplished by Gerson and his associates in the WHIG:
“What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history.”
That’s what Gerson helped to accomplish.
Gerson is widely regarded as the author of the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” fear-mongering metaphor that became the most effective rhetorical trick used by Bush officials in promoting the Iraq War. (Check out Gerson’ Wikipedia page for some interesting anecdotes told by his fellow speech-writers [with citations]).
I have always wondered what happened to Gerson’s Christian conscience during those crucial years in the Bush White House.
In 2012 Gerson gave a public lecture at Calvin College. I was there. As he often does, Gerson talked about the formative influences of Charles Colson and Senator Jack Kemp, two Christian leaders with whom he worked closely as a young man. He credits them for positively shaping his Christian social and political conscience. He also talked briefly about his years with George W. Bush, but had precious little to say about his work in the White House.
When it came time for the audience to ask questions, I took my place in the short line forming behind a public microphone. I don’t recall my exact words, but this is essentially what I asked Mr. Gerson:
Torture at Abu Ghraib prison
“You have talked a lot about how your Christian conscience has directed you through your life in politics. Yet, your political career includes working for an administration that legalized and carried out the torture of other human beings. Your White House also violated our Constitution with its warrantless, mass surveillance of the American people. When asked, the president you worked for knowingly lied to us about that fact.
The man packed in ice is Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi prisoner who died while being tortured in Abu Ghraib prison
“How did you, how do you, reconcile all of that with your ‘Christian conscience?’ How could you do that? What do you have to say?”
Gerson’s answer was a disheartening example of double-speak and evasion. He never answered my question, not really. And I was surprised that he didn’t have a more polished response. Certainly, he had been asked this question before?
I have no idea if Mr. Gerson has ever answered that question within himself. If he felt ashamed or had experienced any regret over his years of deliberate, knowing collusion in clearing a path for one of the greatest American crimes of the 20th century, he gave no indication of it.
Though I strongly disagree with almost all of Gerson’s policy positions, I am pleased to see him take up the pen and use his position with the Washington Post to shed some sensible, moral – perhaps even somewhat Christian – daylight onto the sweaty, belching, obnoxious, moral turpitude that is the Trump administration.
Apparently, the water temperature in this current White House is too hot even for Michael Gerson. But his previous ability to flourish at criminally high temperatures causes me to bite my tongue as others commend him for his Christian cajones.
My understanding of Christianity says that redemption first requires confession of and repentance from sin. Public sins demand public confession. We may have learned a little about Gerson’s tolerance of the current heat in Washington, D.C.
I am not convinced that his current opposition to Donald Trump tells us anything at all about Gerson’s Christian discipleship.
I am still waiting to hear a public confession of his past, political sins.
Real Christians trust in the eternal, heavenly Father of the resurrected and ascended Lord, Jesus Christ. There is a difference, a BIG difference between these two deities.
Trusting in God does not require anything of us, because God-trusters always make God in their own image.
The generic God of the God-trusters is a God of convenience. And what is America today if not the wasteland of endless, ad nauseum convenience?
Idolatry’s promise of religious convenience is at the heart of why God-trusters embrace their ever-convenient God. Like all idolatry, trusting in the God of American civil religion is easy-peasy religion, because that God is always on our side. What’s not to like?
Who wouldn’t want to be on God’s side when you already think you know that God’s side is always your side?
The angel of American manifest destiny
He is always, predictably, the God of our nation, our history, our wars, our empire, our manifest destiny, our foreign policy, our political party, our consumerist lifestyle, our race, even our skin color, if and when appealing to such racial niceties becomes necessary.
How nice it is to believe in an agreeable God who wants for your nation what you do, who believes in the rightness of your cause just as you do, who excuses the world-wide bloodshed caused by your country for the same reasons you do.
How insufferably convenient to embrace a religion of such logical redundancy. Clear-headedness is never expected of anyone.
This is always the way with idolatry.
This In-God-We-Trust God emerges from our own selfish desires, hopes and priorities. For even when we fail to achieve our desires, this God of the God-trusters is flexible enough to adopt failed outcomes as the deepest desire of his heart. So, America can do no wrong, even when she fails abysmally and wreaks havoc among those who suffer from her miscalculations.
On the other hand, if there is one thing the Bible tells us about the one, true God, Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the eternal Father of Jesus of Nazareth: God is never convenient.
Following Jesus of Nazareth is not convenient, not at all convenient. That’s why so few people really do it, consistently, day in and day out, for a lifetime.
When Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) devoted a chapter in his book, The Social Contract (1762), to the centrality of civil religion in the modern nation-state, he emphasized the civic dangers of Christianity. In fact, he believed – rightly, in my opinion – that the gospel of Jesus Christ, when embraced by true believers, posed the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of any modern nation-state. He even went so far as to insist that the Roman Catholic church (the only form of Christianity he knew) be outlawed if the nation-state hoped to survive.
Rousseau’s fears can be boiled down very simply: The Christian God was not controllable. The Christian God is neither predictable nor convenient – at least, not from a human point of view.
Jesus Christ can never be relied upon to cast his vote for “my side.” And he always demands an allegiance transcending national, political and social loyalties.
The atheist Rousseau understood Christianity better than most American Christians.
If we understood the import of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Christians would be the first to ask that idolatrous phrases like “In God We Trust” be erased forever.
We would abandon the silly, meaningless conflicts over state-sanctioned “prayer” in public schools.
We would shun idolatrous ceremonies demanding that we “pledge allegiance” to a flag.
We would laugh hysterically whenever we hear the next televised nattering nabob boast about winning some war over saying “merry Christmas” in the public square.
We would speak up and declare, “No, I do not trust in your God of convenient nationalism. I trust in the heavenly Father of Jesus Christ; Savior of ALL people everywhere; King of the universe; the Lord whose kingdom of righteousness makes public inconvenience a hallmark of the faithful.”
“’This Is an Attempt to Intimidate Certain Voices’: Group Says Meetings Between Trump, Faith Leaders a Violation of Law”
The story concerns a letter (fully documenting its assertions) sent by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State asserting that president Trump’s so-called Evangelical Advisory Board is violating federal law. Below is the substance of their complaint. I have highlighted the essential clauses:
“…the Advisory Board is subject to, but has failed to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. It is clear that the President’s Evangelical Advisory Board is doing substantive work with the Trump Administration behind closed doors—without any sunlight for the public to understand how and why decisions are being made. We respectfully request that the Advisory Board cease meeting and providing advice to the President unless and until it fully complies with FACA, and that you produce to us certain documents relating to the Advisory Board.
“FACA applies to ‘any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof . . . which is . . . established or utilized by the President . . . in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government.’ The Evangelical Advisory Board’s activities are well within FACA’s scope.”
The gist of CBN’s reporting, particularly in its online interview with Advisory Board spokesman, Johnnie Moore, blatantly misrepresents the
Johnnie Moore, graduate of Liberty University
AUSCS letter. Describing it as one more secularist attempt to “intimidate” evangelical voices in government, both CBN and Johnnie Moore distort the real complaint beyond recognition.
As anyone who reads the letter can see, the problem is not that Trump hangs out with evangelicals – although given the cataclysmic demise of evangelical integrity these days, they certainly can’t be anything but a corrosive influence on a president in dire need of both spiritual and practical advice. (I would warn the president about the dangers of associating with “backsliders,” but I don’t think he is familiar with the term.)
The problem is not that Trump converses with evangelicals but that he hangs out with them in lonely back alleys, in the dead of night, where they talk in low whispers, without anyone taking notes or keeping a record of their conversations. Such behavior would be unremarkable if these paragons of Christian virtue were swearing fealty to The Donald in the crushed velvet, over-stuffed chairs of Trump Towers. Politically aware followers of Jesus have come to expect such treachery from the mammon-loving leaders of their mega-churches and other televised “ministries” lusting for more TBN airtime.
But the president is a public servant, at least in theory, not merely the crime boss he was before winning the election.
The American people have every right to know, as a matter of public record,
The recent dinner for evangelicals at the White House
with whom the president is meeting, from whom he is taking advice, and whether that advice is affecting the rest of us who pay the president’s salary.
American’s United is simply asking the president and his evangelical bed-fellows to obey the law. That’s it.
Didn’t the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, cite Romans 13 not very long ago as an ominous reminder of just how law-abiding all Americans were supposed to be? True evangelicals ought to be jumping at the chance fully “to comply with, the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2.”
Of course, good ‘ole boy Johnnie (any grown man who insists on being called Johnnie has got to be a good ‘ole boy) insists that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council. CBN reports,
“’From the very beginning we’ve made it clear that there is no evangelical advisory council at the White House…I don’t know how many times I’ve said that. I think everybody just needs to recognize that this is an attempt to intimidate certain voices, and voices that will not be intimidated,’ said Moore.
While there is no doubt that Sessions was trying to “intimidate certain
Rev. Paula White opens the evangelical dinner with prayer
voices” with his immigration policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, under the aegis of Romans 13 no less, I confess that the intimidation factor in the American’s United letter escapes me completely.
Johnnie’s bald-faced insistence that there is no such thing as an Evangelical Advisory Council reminds me of the Monty Python “Dead Parrot sketch.” After his recently purchased parrot dies, the disgruntled customer tries to return his now dead parrot to the pet shop, only to be faced with the recalcitrant owner who insists – contrary to all the evidence – that the bird is not dead, only resting. Classic Monty Python.
Well, Johnnie Moore. Monty Python disbanded long ago. Your attempts to resurrect the group with a new Evangelical Council sketch won’t work. It’s not funny.
After all, there is a stable collection of “evangelical” church leaders who periodically gather collectively with the president in Washington D.C., providing him with counsel about issues dear to their hearts, urging him to adopt policies favorable to their concerns. The recent White House dinner for evangelicals was a gathering of the usual suspects.
Johnnie Moore’s denial and complaint is only the latest example of evangelicalism’s pathetic sense of entitlement and bogus victimization.
Paula and Franklin Graham say ‘cheese’ for the White House photographer
You, first, demand special treatment – why do we have to make a public record of our meetings with the president? It’s not fair! – and then you cry the crocodile tears of “religious discrimination” when a public service organization calls you out for trying to play by your own rules.
Why can’t evangelical leaders willingly abide by the same standards applied to every other lobbying group? Why the skulduggery, followed by another “stop picking on me” burst of tears? It’s pathetic.
Sadly, this story, which is paradigmatic of the many reprehensible ills afflicting evangelicalism today, is one layer of dishonesty on top of another, and another, and another…
If you will, allow me to paraphrase the apostle Paul’s lament over mortality as I close. Paul says, “Oh, my God, who will deliver me from this body-politic of death?” (Romans 7:24).
She unexpectedly bumped into another friend while they both were marching in a local protest demonstrating against president Trump’s immigration policies.
She passed along these kind remarks:
“…(my friend) mentioned that the men’s book club had finished reading I Pledge Allegiance this morning, and found it really good and deeply challenging in all the right ways – and also that he had been in touch with you to say how superb he finds the book. I’m really glad that he took the initiative to contact you!! He and I have been talking a lot about it recently, and how we need to keep it close by to help us to navigate the insanity.”
I could not be more pleased. She describes everything I hope would happen when disciples wrestle with God’s word while considering the arguments found in my book.
I am pleased as punch.
If you haven’t yet read I Pledge Allegiance, please join the crowd of those who have and ask the Holy Spirit what He wants you to be doing for the kingdom of God in this world right now.
From Here to Maturity: Overcoming the Juvenilization of American Christianity (Eerdmans, 2014) is the sequel to Thomas Bergler’s acclaimed book, The Juvenilization of American Christianity. (See my review). In his second book, Bergler offers practical advice for church leaders searching for remedies to the problems of perpetually juvenile congregations. The goal is to grow churches of maturing disciples not content with permanent states of spiritual adolescence.
Chapter 1, “We’re All Adolescents Now,” briefly reviews the conclusions of Bergler’s extensive historical survey in The Juvenilization of American Christianity. Once again, he defines juvenilization as “the process by which the religious beliefs, practices, and developmental characteristics of adolescents become accepted – or even celebrated – as appropriate for Christians of all ages” (2). We should probably add the word indefinitely or forever to this definition. Everyone is a juvenile at some point, but it should be short-lived, not a permanent condition.
The congregational expression of adolescent faith is a strong preference for “emotionally comforting, self-focused, and intellectually shallow” church services and worship experiences where a person’s connection to Christ is typically described as “falling in love with Jesus.” The vocabulary of teenage romance becomes normative for all Christian faith among all ages, all the time.
After diagnosing these problems, Bergler provides a good, if brief, survey of maturity vocabulary in the New Testament, highlighting passages that distinguish mature from immature faith and the essential characteristics of mature Christianity (for example, see Hebrews 5:11 – 6:12). Chapter 2 then elaborates on the New Testament descriptions of how this spiritual growth can be nurtured, including the fact that such development is not optional. It is not ok to remain content with a juvenile faith. Mature Christians are described as:
knowing “foundational Christian teachings well enough to explain them to others” (38)
able to discern the differences between sound and unsound teaching, encouraging the one and opposing the other while putting it into practice
embracing suffering and trials, especially for the sake of the gospel, as essential aspects of maturation
understanding that they are “being conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ,” especially by their sacrificial service to others (39)
devoted to the unity and development of the church, rejecting unloving actions intended to cause division (41)
actively “putting off the old self and putting on the new self” while displaying Godly character (42).
The process of spiritual growth requires (1) sound teaching on the importance of Christian maturity and what it looks like within the context of (2) personal relationships where mature believers can serve as “spiritual parents” to newer believers, modeling the maturation process in community.
The remainder of the book explores specific ways for church leaders to become intentional and specific in their promotion of congregational maturity across all age groups. Chapter 3, “Helping Adults Mature,” grapples with motivating and instructing the current generation of juvenilized adults who have never known anything other than “youth group” Christianity.
One of the greatest challenges to this demographic is the development of mature emotional patterns. Bergler says, “Among contemporary American Christians, it seems that feelings are too often obstacles rather than resources for spiritual growth…They think that the way to grow closer to God is to seek new and better emotional experiences” (72). Bergler encourages leaders to adopt Dallas Willard’s useful model of VIM, referring to a strategy for implementing Vision, Intention, and Means.
Chapter 4 elaborates on the need for congregational-wide planning by refocusing on healthy youth group strategies. Juvenilization is the result of adolescent ministry strategies expanding throughout congregational life and becoming normative for all age levels. Bergler’s maturation strategy encourages youth ministries to adopt processes of spiritual growth that are transferable throughout the entire congregation. The road of spiritual influences would be a two-way street, from youth to adults as well as from adults to youth.
This chapter is the lengthiest and most elaborate section of Bergler’s book. I suspect that many readers will find his suggestions too programmatic and complex for their liking. It certainly appears overwhelming, at least it did to me. But Bergler offers a number of practical suggestions for modifying, adapting and customizing this material in ways that keep the Biblical essentials while allowing for flexible implementation. It is well worth studying the results of his research and then brainstorming with others about the best ways to implement processes for congregational maturity in your church.
Living in a culture that can be very anti-intellectual – within the church, this attitude typically expresses itself in “anti-theological” language; we have all heard it – Bergler emphasizes the importance of leaders teaching sound theology to their congregations. Good teachers figure out ways to make Christian theology accessible and practical while highlighting its importance.
Allow me to quote at length from Bergler’s conclusions on the centrality of theology:
“First, theology provides the basic truths and principles of discernment that every mature Christian must embrace…Both the biblical and sociological evidence confirm that churches that help people learn, love, and live theology (as opposed to just having uninformed good feelings about God) tend to produce more spiritually mature Christians…
“Second, theological reflection can help church leaders identify the barriers to spiritual maturity in their congregations. Often it is not the official theology of the church that hinders spiritual maturity; rather, it is the lived theology of the congregation that gets in the way…When churches find it hard to get adults to care about the youth ministry or to get young people to care about the rest of the church, a lived theology of the church that does not challenge American individualism and age segregation may be one of the causes” (112).
Amen.
Bergler’s final chapter, “From Here to Maturity,” links to several diagnostic indices offering tools for congregational assessment. Understanding a congregation’s current maturity level is a preliminary step in determining the right strategy for moving forward. Again, some readers will find this chapter too programmatic for their liking. Leaders who ignore his advice, however, do so at their own peril. Remember James’ warning that “teachers will be judged more strictly” (3:1).
To illustrate his analysis for the need of remedial leadership, Bergler focuses on congregational worship and the importance of changing the style of music to which so many American church-goers have become accustomed – though he does touch on other issues as well.
Bergler is particularly concerned about “the ways that certain contemporary worship practices mimic pop culture” (127). And, No, he is not a fighting-fundi condemning rock-and-roll in church. He is analyzing musical content and the patterns of thought and expression embedded in the lyrics. A brief but important discussion of research in cognitive psychology explains how musical preferences can “hard-wire” our neural circuitry into “schemas” or mental, neural patterns that “reinforce patterns of thinking and behaving” without our ever realizing the ways in which our brains are being programmed (130).
Bergler focuses on two problems in contemporary worship:
First, a great many contemporary worship songs are me-focused rather than God-focused. A congregation can easily spend more time referring to themselves, singing about things they are going to do, rather than focusing on our Triune God, declaring the things that He has done. There is a proper time and place for talking about ourselves – especially as we confess our guilt and sin, repent and ask for forgiveness; rarely performed acts of worship in non-liturgical churches nowadays – but for many congregations singing about oneself is the main course all the time.
Second, a great deal of contemporary church music “draws from the North American culture of romantic love” (126). The result is that “falling in love” or “being in love” with Jesus becomes the central image of Christian living. True love becomes the agent of salvation (131), despite the fact that New Testament passages using marriage or marriage feasts as metaphors for Christ’s relationship to the church never tell believers that they should be in love with Jesus (check out the passages listed on page 133).
Allow me to quote Bergler at length one last time:
“Slow dance worship songs are drawing on American cultural scripts about romantic relationships for their emotional impact. Those exposed to a steady diet of this music will be tempted to embrace the Christian life as a kind of romantic infatuation…such Christians may develop a self-centered relationship with Jesus…They will value the way Jesus makes them feel and will be much less concerned about the theological content of the faith. Too many slow dances with Jesus may reinforce immature forms of the Christian life (132).
“A relationship with Jesus the master involves training and submission, not just emotional comfort…Followers of Jesus give up all claims to their own life and devote themselves to joining him in his kingdom mission…Slow dance worship music does little to grow mature Christian communities. With its emphasis on the one-on-one relationship between Jesus and the believer (“Jesus I am so in love with you”) it does nothing to counteract the rampant individualism in American society. The particular brand of individualism found in this music emphasizes how God fits into my life and provides me what I need, not how I need to fit into God’s kingdom. In other words, it reinforces the therapeutic or even narcissistic religion that is rampant in contemporary America” (134-135).
Bergler offers some excellent advice on how to sensibly address these issues and implement much needed changes in church life. I recommend reading his book for yourself to discover the details of what he suggests.
As I conclude this review, I find myself meditating on the abysmal spiritual condition of American evangelicalism in this era of Trump and wondering to what extent Bergler’s diagnosis of juvenilized Christianity helps to explain the many current, evangelical political behaviors that I find utterly abhorrent, even down-right pagan. Remember, 81% of self-identified evangelicals voted for this man. White evangelical support for Trump remains at an all-time high despite his noxious behavior, war-mongering, flagrant disregard for common decency, dehumanizing of others — especially women — immigrants and people of color, pathological lies, misrepresentations and stunning political ineptitude.
It makes perfect sense to me that our malignantly narcissistic, petulant man-child of a president continues to ride the wave of support given to him by equally self-centered, childish, anti-intellectual, evangelical “Christians” who have never learned the value of spiritual discernment, theological acumen, self-denial, or obedience to the kingdom mission of Jesus Christ before every other distraction.
In the book of Revelation, John the Seer warns the church about their need for spiritualmaturity if they hope to stand firm until the very End.
“This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints” (Rev. 13:10).
“This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus” (Rev. 14:12).
Another of history’s many antichrists (see 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7) now sits in the oval office. Thus far, America’s juvenilized evangelicals remain Trump’s staunchest supporters. The devotees most lacking in conscience impute to him an almost messianic status as The One sent to us by God. What further proof is needed of the destructive social consequences born of wholesale, unapologetic childishness among God’s people?
The shepherds who failed to instill maturity throughout their flocks, who never even thought to ask the right questions, will one day be held accountable for their neglect of God’s children. They will “weep and wail” because of their faithlessness (Jeremiah 25:34-35).
The church is not exempt from divine judgment. We dare not forget Israel’s own pitiful example:
“Like a woman unfaithful to her husband,
so, you have been unfaithful to me,
O house of Israel,” declares the LORD…
A cry is heard on the barren heights,
the weeping and pleading of the people of Israel,
because they have perverted their ways
and have forgotten the LORD their God.
“Return, faithless people;
I will cure you of your backsliding.”…
Surely the idolatrous commotion on the hills [e.g. Capitol Hill]
and the mountains is a deception;
surely in the LORD our God
is the salvation of Israel. (Jeremiah 3:20-23)
Am I suggesting that there is a straight line from slow-dancing with Jesus to embracing Donald Trump? No. But circuitous, evasive lines full of detours, while trickier to trace out, are no less significant.
And we all know that subtle, hidden connections can be more dangerous than obvious straight lines.
I have just returned from a trip to western Washington (state), so I need to get busy again!
The following excerpts from Saint Donald’s Epistles (an old fashioned word for “letters”) were waiting for me when I checked my email. It was sent to me by a friend and former colleague at Calvin College.
I don’t think it requires much commentary.
Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 13 (NIV)
St. Paul by Rembrandt
(4) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. (5) It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. (6) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. (7) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Saint Donald’s Epistle to America, chapter 13
(4) I am impatient, I am unkind. I envy, I boast, I am arrogant. (5) I dishonor others, I am self-seeking, I am easily angered, I keep a record of wrongs. (6) I am delighted with my own
Donald Trump waits to speak as he is introduced at the New York Veterans Police Association on April 17, 2016. (Photo by Anthony Behar)
goodness but do not rejoice with the truth. (7) I always protect only what is in my own interest, always trust in my feelings of superiority, always hope that others will recognize my perfection, always persevere to achieve my own glorification.
Saint Donald’s Epistle to the World, chapter 13
(4) Henceforth, America will be impatient, America will be unkind. It will envy, it will boast, it will be arrogant. (5) It will dishonor others, it will be self-seeking, it will be easily angered, it will keep a record of wrongs. (6) America will be delighted with its own goodness but not rejoice with the truth. (7) It will always protect only what is in its own interest, always trust in its feelings of superiority, always hope that others will recognize its perfection, always persevere to achieve its own glorification.
appointment before the midterm elections. Mitch McConnell has stated openly that his proudest moment as Senate majority leader was the derailment of president Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. Now is his long-awaited opportunity to conclude that intensely partisan reappointment process with another conservative judge.
themselves. The sole desire of Senators Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Cornyn and Cruz has been to get another conservative Republican on the Supreme Court bench by hook or by crook before they (conceivably) lose their Senate majority. Damn the truth; damn fair-play; damn an honest hearing process; damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead!
why we rarely ever hear politicians apologize for anything, no matter how outlandish. It is a timely piece, well worth considering at this moment.
Dr. Christine Ford has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape when they were in high school together. One might think that this new “era” of the 
Of course, Kavanaugh insists that the alleged assault never happened. Yet, I can’t help but be sympathetic to Dr. Ford.
bear it, watch Franklin Graham’s shameless, partisan boot-licking in his recent 
auditioning for the role of sensitive committee granddad by offering Ford a variety of scenarios where she could tell her story in a one-on-one session along with Kavanaugh next Monday. The problem, however, is that all of Grassley’s options include meeting with the committee before an FBI investigation would be complete.
Put your wiggling, green frog into the kettle. Set the kettle onto the burner. Wait…
president Trump’s most vocal, conservative critics. And I admire him for taking up the cause of repeating out loud that this president has no clothes.
Gerson is widely regarded as the author of the “smoking gun/mushroom cloud” fear-mongering metaphor that became the most effective rhetorical trick used by Bush officials in promoting the Iraq War. (Check out Gerson’ 
during those crucial years in the Bush White House.
these two deities.
The Social Contract (1762), to the centrality of civil religion in the modern nation-state, he emphasized the civic dangers of Christianity. In fact, he believed – rightly, in my opinion – that the gospel of Jesus Christ, when embraced by true believers, posed the single greatest threat to the long-term survival of any modern nation-state. He even went so far as to insist that the Roman Catholic church (the only form of Christianity he knew) be outlawed if the nation-state hoped to survive.
loyalties.
We would shun idolatrous ceremonies demanding that we “pledge allegiance” to a flag.
“’This Is an Attempt to Intimidate Certain Voices’: Group Says Meetings Between Trump, Faith Leaders a Violation of Law”
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2. It is clear that the President’s Evangelical Advisory Board is doing substantive work with the Trump Administration behind closed doors—without any sunlight for the public to understand how and why decisions are being made. We respectfully request that the Advisory Board cease meeting and providing advice to the President unless and until it fully complies with FACA, and that you produce to us certain documents relating to the Advisory Board.
Bergler offers practical advice for church leaders searching for remedies to the problems of perpetually juvenile congregations. The goal is to grow churches of maturing disciples not content with permanent states of spiritual adolescence.
explain the many current, evangelical political behaviors that I find utterly abhorrent, even down-right pagan. Remember, 81% of self-identified evangelicals voted for this man. White evangelical support for Trump remains at an 
