Johnnie Moore |
The Pew Research Center reported that at the time of Trump's election, seventy-eight percent of white evangelical protestants approved of him. A year later that support had declined to sixty-one percent.
Forty-six percent of white mainline protestants approved of the way he was governing a year later (via a Pew Research Center survey conducted in Nov. and Dec.)
Among black protestants and Hispanics, it's a very different story. Trump had a seven percent approval rating among survey respondents, which was consistent with their support at the time of the election. The approval rating among Hispanics remained the same, at seventeen percent.
In January, the Pew Research Center asked if Trump's election had led to worsened race relations. Sixty percent of respondents said yes, compared with only forty-six percent at the time of his election.
Given this background, an article in last week's New York Times bears particular relevance. In the article, Johnnie Moore, one of a core group of white evangelicals who advises Trump, boasted that his group continued to have influence with the president via special "listening sessions."
"This White House," Moore stated, "is open to evangelicals."
Moore went on to say that he personally visited the White House about twenty times last year. "Not a day goes by that there aren't a dozen evangelical leaders in the White House for something." One almost has to assume that they are mostly white.
Which begs the question: What sort of influence do Moore and the rest of the dozen evangelical leaders really have over the White House or the current president?
Robert Jeffress, another member of this evangelical advisory group, said "I can't look into the president's heart to know if he really believes in these positions [that the group is advocating]... but frankly, I don't care. As a Christian I'm seeing these policies embraced and enacted and he's doing that."
One could infer from Jeffress' statement, that the evangelical group doesn't pay much attention to the way Trump or his advisors in the White House act in their personal lives.
What Moore and Jeffress seem to be missing is that, many of the current president's actions and actions of his staff are anything but Christian.
To take just one example, witness the recent blow-up over allegations of domestic violence on the part of one of Trump's ex-senior advisors. Two of this former advisors' ex-wives reported significant abuse. Serious enough to have Trump's chief of staff ask for the advisor's removal. In speaking about the situation, Trump has said nothing about the abuse, while praising the advisor's work.
Speaking of the president's chief of staff, John Kelly, Mr. Kelly came under fire after the Charlottesville debacle as saying the Civil War was the result of a failure to compromise [over the issue of slavery.]
That same event in Charlottesville caused the president to remain pointedly silent for a day, then say there were "good people on both sides," meaning the KKK as well as the civil rights demonstrators who were present. As you may recall, Trump refused to admonish the KKK.
Would Mr. Moore or Jeffress call any of these actions Christian?
And while the president has publicly proclaimed he is now against abortion, he is also set to deport about one million DACA "Dreamers" in early March, refusing to take a leadership role in reaching a legislative solution to the issues of immigration and refugees. In fact, the current administration is seeking to lower the number of immigrants and refugees admitted to the US to historic lows in modern times.
How are these actions pro life?
Robert Jeffress |
Perhaps the time has come to consider a broader definition of pro life to include the rest of life after birth; calling such actions "life affirming." This would include taking a stand to support DACA, Medicaid expansion, SNAP (food stamps) and standing against the current administration's plan to pay for significant increases in the military budget and building a wall across the Mexican border with significant cuts to Medicare and other social services.
As to the Judeo-Christian definition of religion, here's what is found in Micah, Chapter 6: "...the LORD has told you what is good, and this is what he requires of you: to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with the LORD your God."
Jesus' own mission statement was taken straight from Isaiah when Jesus spoke in the synagogue in Nazareth: "The spirit of the LORD is upon me, Because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..." (Luke 4:18)
Most all major world religions aim to take the focus off of ourselves and on to others. The standard for living is simple, get along with others, treat them as you would like to be treated. It seems that the current president has been the very definition of one who cannot seem to understand this one, basic truth.
I would ask Mr. Moore, Mr. Jeffress and any other member of their particular evangelical crowd: Do Mr. Trump and his advisors fit the definition of a Christian that you want others to emulate? And if not, how can you say you are having any kind of an influence in the White House?
Mr. Moore, I would ask you, specifically, what are you discussing when you go to the White House and "personalize" issues for the president and his staff?
All of this leaves the lingering, overarching question: What is the point behind the dozen (mostly white) evangelicals coming to the White House on a daily basis?
G.K. Chesterton once said, "Let your religion be less of a theory [or adherence to a dogma] and more of a love affair."
After all, Jesus himself , speaking of the Pharisees, said that "by their fruits you will know them."
No comments:
Post a Comment