After Christianity Today's call for the removal of Donald Trump from office a number of evangelical leaders have rushed to Trump's defense including Franklin Graham and now theologian Wayne Grudem.
I've met Grudem before. And he's so well-known in evangelical circles -- having written that popular textbook on evangelical theology and having founded the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I have little good to say about his textbook, because I feel it's historically just vacuous. His approach is undeniably thoroughly "biblical", but it's more like a theological commentary on the concordance than a genuine, exegetically-astute biblical theology. He basically presents God in the image of the Republican Party and not necessarily the best part of that party in another of his books -- something that, sadly, is just beneath the surface in his textbook. It's why guys like him ignore Karl Barth to their own peril. Barth knew first-hand the dangers of using theology to bankroll socio-politics. His "Bible and me" approach is the recipe for a theology that is dangerously naive, without historical depth, entirely lacking hermeneutical self-reflection, devoid of catholicity, open to being press-ganged to justify political agendas of the far left or far right, and missing the theological sophistication that derives from engaging from those in other theological traditions. All new theologians should repeat this mantra: Anyone who knows only the Bible doesn't really know it. It takes a village, or more properly an entire church body, with biblical language tutors, biblical exegetes, church historians, philosophers, liturgists, and cultural critics, to raise a theologian.
I'm positive my readers here will know that I'm not a Trump supporter. Yes, I freely admit that Trump has done some "good things" for the US economy, that he's made some judicious appointments, that he's given a world-class speech about international politics, and even led efforts to effect the global decriminalization of homosexuality (at least really early on in his administration). And I think that US "liberals" need to understand why Donald Trump was elected without recourse to Russia, Fox News and the so-called "cancer" of heterosexual white males, racism. American "progressives" (such as they are) have become disengaged from American working class folks. Trump plays on xenophobic prejudices whenever he can, his misogyny is well documented -- even if now visibly inactive -- he is pathologically narcissistic, and he operates in a mode of malice and spite that I find simply unimaginable for a US President. He is good to evangelicals because and only because it's to his advantage. Should Trump no longer need evangelicals, should they have nothing to offer him, Trump will ignore them or dispense with them.
That's something guys like Graham and Grudem fail to understand. Grudem recently wrote: "My response is that I see nothing wrong with the president doing things that will bring him personal, political benefit". Yeah, political benefit is ok, but not at the expense of ethical or legal obligations to the social and political body of the United States. Presidents do not get a "get out of jail free" card simply because they're president. All that deviousness, duplicity or mendacity has an overall negative effect on the American political landscape.
Grudem believes that Trump's good policies derive from his good character: "Such accomplishments are morally good benefits for the nation as a whole, and they have been accomplished by Trump in the face of relentless opposition from Democrats. Far from being 'morally lost and confused,' Trump seems to me to have a strong sense of justice and fair play, and he is (I think rightfully) upset that the impeachment process in the House was anything but just and fair." Grudem repeatedly refers to Jesus' words about how a good tree produces good fruit.
But for Grudem to say Good Policies = Good President, is morally dangerous. It sets a precedent among evangelicals that makes me cringe. Because if "Good Policies" becomes the measuring stick for evaluating political leaders, your stick is crooked. The effect of policies will change over time. Ever hear of "unintended consequences"? Boy, I have. I know history. And I've seen evangelical leaders do this kind of thing before. Setting dangerous precedents that lead to ever more dangerous policies.
I don't like Liberal Theology. I believe, with Bonhoeffer, that it produces a God without wrath who brings men and women without sin to a kingdom without judgment thanks to the ministrations of a Christ without a cross. But I think Grudem and Graham are just as dangerous as the "liberals" they want to oppose. Grudem's Trumpology presents a God with partisan mercy, who expects men and women to ignore their moral compasses, to call the wicked good and the good wicked, in order to keep themselves positioned in the court of earthly power.
That's how Adolf Hitlers are made.
I've met Grudem before. And he's so well-known in evangelical circles -- having written that popular textbook on evangelical theology and having founded the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I have little good to say about his textbook, because I feel it's historically just vacuous. His approach is undeniably thoroughly "biblical", but it's more like a theological commentary on the concordance than a genuine, exegetically-astute biblical theology. He basically presents God in the image of the Republican Party and not necessarily the best part of that party in another of his books -- something that, sadly, is just beneath the surface in his textbook. It's why guys like him ignore Karl Barth to their own peril. Barth knew first-hand the dangers of using theology to bankroll socio-politics. His "Bible and me" approach is the recipe for a theology that is dangerously naive, without historical depth, entirely lacking hermeneutical self-reflection, devoid of catholicity, open to being press-ganged to justify political agendas of the far left or far right, and missing the theological sophistication that derives from engaging from those in other theological traditions. All new theologians should repeat this mantra: Anyone who knows only the Bible doesn't really know it. It takes a village, or more properly an entire church body, with biblical language tutors, biblical exegetes, church historians, philosophers, liturgists, and cultural critics, to raise a theologian.
I'm positive my readers here will know that I'm not a Trump supporter. Yes, I freely admit that Trump has done some "good things" for the US economy, that he's made some judicious appointments, that he's given a world-class speech about international politics, and even led efforts to effect the global decriminalization of homosexuality (at least really early on in his administration). And I think that US "liberals" need to understand why Donald Trump was elected without recourse to Russia, Fox News and the so-called "cancer" of heterosexual white males, racism. American "progressives" (such as they are) have become disengaged from American working class folks. Trump plays on xenophobic prejudices whenever he can, his misogyny is well documented -- even if now visibly inactive -- he is pathologically narcissistic, and he operates in a mode of malice and spite that I find simply unimaginable for a US President. He is good to evangelicals because and only because it's to his advantage. Should Trump no longer need evangelicals, should they have nothing to offer him, Trump will ignore them or dispense with them.
That's something guys like Graham and Grudem fail to understand. Grudem recently wrote: "My response is that I see nothing wrong with the president doing things that will bring him personal, political benefit". Yeah, political benefit is ok, but not at the expense of ethical or legal obligations to the social and political body of the United States. Presidents do not get a "get out of jail free" card simply because they're president. All that deviousness, duplicity or mendacity has an overall negative effect on the American political landscape.
Grudem believes that Trump's good policies derive from his good character: "Such accomplishments are morally good benefits for the nation as a whole, and they have been accomplished by Trump in the face of relentless opposition from Democrats. Far from being 'morally lost and confused,' Trump seems to me to have a strong sense of justice and fair play, and he is (I think rightfully) upset that the impeachment process in the House was anything but just and fair." Grudem repeatedly refers to Jesus' words about how a good tree produces good fruit.
But for Grudem to say Good Policies = Good President, is morally dangerous. It sets a precedent among evangelicals that makes me cringe. Because if "Good Policies" becomes the measuring stick for evaluating political leaders, your stick is crooked. The effect of policies will change over time. Ever hear of "unintended consequences"? Boy, I have. I know history. And I've seen evangelical leaders do this kind of thing before. Setting dangerous precedents that lead to ever more dangerous policies.
I don't like Liberal Theology. I believe, with Bonhoeffer, that it produces a God without wrath who brings men and women without sin to a kingdom without judgment thanks to the ministrations of a Christ without a cross. But I think Grudem and Graham are just as dangerous as the "liberals" they want to oppose. Grudem's Trumpology presents a God with partisan mercy, who expects men and women to ignore their moral compasses, to call the wicked good and the good wicked, in order to keep themselves positioned in the court of earthly power.
That's how Adolf Hitlers are made.