Ed Stetzer has been a Christian voice crying in a political wilderness about President Trump’s character problems. Now Stetzer offers an opinion titled “Evangelicals face a reckoning: Donald Trump and the future of our faith (2021, January 10).” In this post, I look at Stetzer’s opinions and conclude, based on the evidence, they are Dead on Arrival.
A cursory
glance at his article and online responses shows it doesn’t read well among Trump’s evangelicals. If
Stetzer is an evangelical, and I do not doubt his claim, he is from a different
tribe than those who follow Franklin Graham who, along with other evangelical
leaders, long-supported President Trump. Ironically, Stetzer leads the Billy
Graham Center at Wheaton.
Let’s
look at Stetzer’s points to understand the Evangelical tribal divisions.
1. In
line one he wrote: “It's
tough to admit we were wrong. Now, many evangelicals are seeing President
Donald Trump for who he is, but more need to see what he has done to us.”
Who is the “we”
here? Stetzer did not support Trump so he is not part of the massive number of evangelicals who
did. He wants to speak for evangelicals, but I don’t see the evidence supporting that Ed can be a voice for Trump's evangelicals.
Evangelical
scholar and bestselling author Craig Keener publicly shared Stetzer’s opinion
on Facebook. Here’s one example of a comment on the problem with Stetzer’s
attempt to change a “they” into an “us:”
What nonsense. Always love the hubris of an author who proclaims for all
of us, “we’ve been fooled.” No actually I’ve not been fooled ...not at all. The
“fooled” were the virtue signaling Pharisees that focused on personality over platform
values…”
Read more if you wish to find other examples that Ed really is not part of the same evangelical group.
Here is a second and more potent example why Stetzer does not have sufficient standing to claim a "we" status. Franklin Graham lambasted the Republicans who voted to impeach president Trump. And he proceeded to detail the good things Trump has done. Graham has standing as an evangelical with over 9.5 million followers on Facebook compared to Stetzer's 43 thousand. Here's one paragraph to illustrate evangelical Graham's view:
Shame, shame on the ten Republicans who joined with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in impeaching President Trump yesterday. After all that he has done for our country, you would turn your back and betray him so quickly? We have never had a president like him in my lifetime.
You can read more on Graham's Facebook page.
2. Stetzer opines “We reap what Trump has sown.” Now, temporarily setting aside the “we” discussion above, I am looking at the sewing-reaping metaphor. According to Stetzer, evangelicals have reaped a day of reckoning and he proceeds to explain why the day of reckoning arrived. I want to see convincing evidence that his premises are sound.
Stetzer's three causes of the “Reckoning.”
2.1. First, Stetzer takes aim at the sinful
behavior tolerated by the evangelicals:
“The past half decade has offered near daily examples of people co-opting
the gospel for sinful ends. Racism, nationalism, sexism, and host of other sins
have found purchase within the evangelical movement in both overt and subtle
expressions.”
I suggest
it is NOT the past half-decade that links evangelicals to racism, nationalism,
and sexism based on evidence. These three issues can be traced back to the Europeans who brought
various strains of Christianity with them to America. Racism, nationalism, and
sexism exist and have existed for centuries. Positing racism, nationalism, and
sexism as causes of the day of reckoning isn’t supported by evidence. Let's think clearly. Ed wants to talk about causes. As we learned in High School, causes ought to clearly be linked to effects as in Cause --> Effect. If you ignore the history of a cause you assert to be true, how useful is that to explain anything at all?
Take race
as one example of a Stetzer cause. The data are clear that most Black voters vote for Democrats
(e.g., Princeton).
This is not new. Also, evangelicals have a long history of supporting slavery
and segregation but they have gradually repudiated those positions (e.g., Tisby).
When it comes to sexism, you have to go back to day one. Men have ruled the
church since its inception and relied on biblical texts to support their
dominance. It is only in recent years that some segments of evangelicals granted
clergy credentials to women (e.g., Qualls).
Sexism exists yet surely things are better now.
More to the
point of causation are the data that show problems with the appeal of
evangelicalism to Americans as can be found in the book, unChristian
published in 2010. The evidence simply does not support Stetzer's first claim of a cause leading to a day of reckoning.
2.2. Second, Stetzer asserts that “far too
many failed to live up to their promise of speaking truth to power.” I agree
that this is a problem for evangelicals but it is not unique to people who
identify as evangelicals. I do not see the evidence indicating that this is a
recent problem for evangelicals or other Christians. Instead, the church has a long
history of silence when it comes to exposing the sins of government leaders as amply documented by MacCulloch.
2.3. Stetzer’s final cause is “…all of us
have failed to foster healthy political discipleship.” That is of course an
opinion. My problem in believing that this is a useful opinion is that it is
far too vague and lacking any kind of supportive evidence.
Suppose a
reader were to agree that this final cause is a true cause. How could the
reader prove it? If healthy political discipleship never existed as Stetzer claims, how can anyone
know that the lack of it is connected to the storming of the capitol building? Even
if evangelicals, or other Christians, could agree on what the idea “healthy
political discipleship” means, it would take decades to find out if such
preparation could be reasonably connected to changes in political behavior.
The fact
is, almost everyone in the Capitol building identifies as Christian and as some
evangelicals angrily exclaim, the people that stormed the capitol are a small
fraction of the 74 million people who voted for Trump. At this point, Stetzer has not supported his arguments for a day of reckoning with evidence.
Stetzer
asks what comes next.
Sadly,
Stetzer offers a pedantic quote from a nonevangelical clergyman who did not
live up to his own words in this section of his opinion. Ironically, the quoted
Christian incited violence and has been a source of embarrassment to Christians
who read his horrific rhetoric. What was Ed Stetzer thinking?
The
credibility of this section in his opinion is marred in the same way that
religious and political leaders cast a stormy cloud upon the religious faith
they claim to represent today. Take a look at Stetzer’s quoted source.
“Toward those who have been misled, we are to show ourselves parentally
affectionate, so that they may perceive that we seek not their destruction but
their salvation.”
For readers
unfamiliar with church history, the words Stetzer quoted were from the
religious leader named Luther who lived in the 1500s and promoted violence toward
Jews as quoted in Christianity
Today.
“Set fire to their synagogues or schools,” Martin Luther recommended in
On the Jews and Their Lies. Jewish houses should “be razed and destroyed,” and
Jewish “prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies,
cursing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them.”
Luther’s words
are an embarrassment to protestants who know this part of church history. Luther’s
hate piece was published in 1543. It took a long time for the church to reach
the point of a public denunciation (Chicago
Tribune, 1994).
Back to
Stetzer’s point
Stetzer takes
a conciliatory attitude toward Trump voters and has ideas about what evangelicals
must do so “the evangelical movement can flourish in the coming generations.”
We will
never know if Stetzer’s prophecy will come true because the term “flourish” is
too vague and many of us won’t be around when an unknown number of generations
can be assessed to see if the flourishing comes to pass. What is more
disheartening is his nationalistic-like view of evangelicalism. Read what he wrote.
“If the evangelical movement is to flourish in the coming generations,
we must face (and even embrace) this reckoning. As leaders and members we must
acknowledge our failings but also understand the habits and idols that drew us
to Trump in the first place.”
Now
consider this. Candidate Trump offered to “Make America Great Again.” He
focused on the United States of America and attracted people who were disgusted
with Obama’s vision of America.
And think. Since when is evangelicalism an American movement? Stetzer’s view is nationalistic in the sense that it is Americentric. I realize that American nationalism is different from Americentric but there is an insidious overlap that fails to recognize the rise and fall of evangelicalism is not dependent on what happens in America.
If as Stetzer claims, Trump supporters have
brought American evangelicals to a day of reckoning, he ought to claim that and
consider that the world contains millions of non-American evangelicals who can
surely be a part of the flourishing of the movement, if indeed it is a human-led
movement. For readers who are not aware of the movement, the evangelical
movement may be traced to the Christian revivals in Europe and the US in the 1700s and 1800s. These quickly
became worldwide movements.
Final
Thoughts
I
appreciate Stetzer’s attempt to take a humble stance by including himself in
the “we” language. He does not set himself up as a Christian who does not need
to repent. I also agree that we ought to vote for people of good character but
character is not enough. We must also choose people with a behavioral history
of supporting the values we consider important. Unfortunately, I doubt that Stetzer’s
opinion will convince evangelicals who voted for Trump that they need to
repent. Here’s why.
1. Ed
Stetzer speaks for a different tribe of evangelicals than the millions who
supported President Trump. Stetzer openly warned evangelicals about Trump. In contrast, other evangelical leaders were highly visible in their support of Trump as can be seen on many social media posts and photos at the White House. The grandstand is of course held by Franklin Graham.
2. Although
I often disagreed with those intelligent Republican Christians about one
approach or another to politics; by voting for Trump, they won considerable
changes in America that will last for years. They wanted a conservative Supreme
Court and they got it. They wanted conservative judges and they got a lot of
them. I support having conservative voices in government as a check on extremely liberal
voices. Extremes are dangerous. I do not think Stetzer gives enough credit to
these wins valued by evangelical Trump supporters--these are not causes for repentance.
3. They
wanted to end abortion—they did not get that, but they did get an opportunity to
present their case and they have a hope that conservative judges will support
restrictions. I too am prolife, but I have written about this elsewhere. The
subject is too nuanced for a closing paragraph. Again, I do not think Stetzer
gives sufficient weight to this highly influential concern that has been part
of evangelical Christian concerns since the late 1970s. Their support for what they still see as a prolife president is not a reason for repentance.
4. They won strong support for Israel and Jerusalem as its capital. How is this win going to lead to a day of reckoning--it is not a cause for repentance.
5. Although Republicans have lost the presidency, they have considerable control
in Washington, DC. They made gains in the House. And there are more Republicans
than Democrats in the Senate (50 R, 48 D, 2 I; Note 1). The Republicans, including those evangelicals who voted for Trump, have considerable influence. I do not see how these wins
will produce a day of reckoning--this is not a reason for repentance.
6. Stetzer's arguments focus on rational arguments and does not consider the power of the human emotions behind the fears and anger expressed in words and deeds by Trump supporters. They have consistently expressed fear that Biden-Harris will undo their gains. And they are considerably angry with Christians who supported Biden-Harris. This is no surprise. And I do not see how a rational argument will reckon with the powerful fear and anger energizing Trump supporters. From the perspective of these evangelicals, their fear is rational and supported by the words of Biden-Harris in their debates.
7. Stetzer also misses the moral foundations of conservative values. Two foundations are highly important. First, they place a premium on respect for authority. Trump was viewed as "God's man" and he delivered results as noted above. People that do not respect the authority of the president have no moral standing with those who do. Second, they value loyalty. If Trump failed to remain true to his promises about abortion and so forth then he would be disloyal to them. This has not happened. To attack Trump's supporters about their loyalty is a serious affront to their character. I do not see this leading to a day of reckoning. Following are two examples of powerful emotions linked to the expectation of loyalty.
7.1 For an example of the loyalty-anger link, consider evangelical Jeremiah Johnson. Yesterday he posted the Christian response he received when he repented of his former prophecies about Trump.
Over the last 72 hours, I have received multiple death threats and thousands upon thousands of emails from Christians saying the nastiest and most vulgar things I have ever heard toward my family and ministry. I have been labeled a coward, sellout, a traitor to the Holy Spirit, and cussed out at least 500 times. We have lost ministry partners every hour and counting.
Johnson's apology that he linked to the hateful attacks can be found at his ministry page.
7.2 For an example of the loyalty-fear connection, see the article quoting Rep. Peter Meijer's view that he and other Republican lawmakers are afraid for their lives (CNBC, 2011 January 11). In Meijer's op ed published in the Detroit News, he also mentions threats against Trump's loyal supporter VP Pence who did not find a way to declare Trump the winner. Meijer too has been called a traitor.
7.3 for a powerful and influential example of loyalty see the "Shame, shame" quote from Franklin Graham noted above.
**********
Ed Stetzer offers keen insights into culture from an evangelical perspective. I just think he missed the boat on this one.
At this point in time, the future of US evangelicalism is with Graham -- see those data.
Notes
1. The two independent Senators are Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
2. The references to the moral foundations of authority and loyalty can be found in Haidt's Righteous Mind.
3. Updated Jan 15, 2021 based on the Franklin Graham shaming post illustrating loyalty.
----------
Ed Stetzer
is a dean and professor at Wheaton College. His opinion in USA Today is dated 10
January 2021.
Links to Connections
Checkout My Website www.suttong.com
See my Books
FOLLOW me on
FACEBOOK Geoff
W. Sutton
TWITTER @Geoff.W.Sutton
PINTEREST www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton
Read published articles:
Academia Geoff
W Sutton
ResearchGate Geoffrey W Sutton
No comments:
Post a Comment