Leading Evangelical magazine: Trump should be removed from office

[TitanTiger 20,472]

 

Quote

Trump Should Be Removed from Office

It’s time to say what we said 20 years ago when a president’s character was revealed for what it was.

Mark Galli, December 19, 2019

In our founding documents, Billy Graham explains that Christianity Today will help evangelical Christians interpret the news in a manner that reflects their faith. The impeachment of Donald Trump is a significant event in the story of our republic. It requires comment.

The typical CT approach is to stay above the fray and allow Christians with different political convictions to make their arguments in the public square, to encourage all to pursue justice according to their convictions and treat their political opposition as charitably as possible. We want CT to be a place that welcomes Christians from across the political spectrum, and reminds everyone that politics is not the end and purpose of our being. We take pride in the fact, for instance, that politics does not dominate our homepage.

That said, we do feel it necessary from time to time to make our own opinions on political matters clear—always, as Graham encouraged us, doing so with both conviction and love. We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle.

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

We have reserved judgment on Mr. Trump for years now. Some have criticized us for our reserve. But when it comes to condemning the behavior of another, patient charity must come first. So we have done our best to give evangelical Trump supporters their due, to try to understand their point of view, to see the prudential nature of so many political decisions they have made regarding Mr. Trump. To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.

Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html

 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

Powerful article, Titan. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

My only question here...Why did this take over three years to come out? 

DJT was rotten before he ran for office..,

[ToraGirl 5,498]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

My only question here...Why duid this take over three years to come out? 

DJT was rotten before he ran for office..,

The article made me dig more. Galli is retiring on January 3. We say a lot of things we wouldn't previously when the end game is in sight. 

I don't have time now, but this is on my read-list for today. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/christianity-todays-call-for-trumps-removal-does-not-speak-for-most-evangelical-christians%3f_amp=true

[TexasTiger 12,835]

13 minutes ago, ToraGirl said:

The article made me dig more. Galli is retiring on January 3. We say a lot of things we wouldn't previously when the end game is in sight. 

I don't have time now, but this is on my read-list for today. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/christianity-todays-call-for-trumps-removal-does-not-speak-for-most-evangelical-christians%3f_amp=true

Most evangelical Christians have rejected Christ’s teachings for Trump’s judges.

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

I wouldn’t call myself a man of faith, However,  I try to live my life with the do unto others rule and stay mindful to hold my moral integrity. But, I do have a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ, due to being involved in church in my youth. I never could understand how any person can claim to follow the teachings of Christ and at the same time stand with someone who has basically lived his life doing the opposite of what Jesus would. It’s always baffled me and, to be honest, reaffirmed my theory that for a large portion of the religion it was just about status and fitting in. I’d almost be willing to bet money that Donald Trump really doesn’t give a damn whether abortion is legal or not and he’s just pandering to his supporters. But I’m encouraged to see a publication that represents Christianity standing behind the tenants of the religion over everything and everyone and calling a spade and spade, like they are supposed to do. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

49 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I wouldn’t call myself a man of faith, However,  I try to live my life with the do unto others rule and stay mindful to hold my moral integrity. But, I do have a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ, due to being involved in church in my youth. I never could understand how any person can claim to follow the teachings of Christ and at the same time stand with someone who has basically lived his life doing the opposite of what Jesus would. It’s always baffled me and, to be honest, reaffirmed my theory that for a large portion of the religion it was just about status and fitting in. I’d almost be willing to bet money that Donald Trump really doesn’t give a damn whether abortion is legal or not and he’s just pandering to his supporters. But I’m encouraged to see a publication that represents Christianity standing behind the tenants of the religion over everything and everyone and calling a spade and spade, like they are supposed to do. 

Personally, and especially at my current church, we differentiate between:
Religion: People following the teachings of man. Most evangelicals now fall here, IMHO. They have a works based theology. Most of mankind is here actually.
Relationship: Actual followers of Christ. Man is depraved and not much more than an animal in truest form.  Without a relationship, it really is just pretty clothes on a bag of bones.

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I wouldn’t call myself a man of faith, However,  I try to live my life with the do unto others rule and stay mindful to hold my moral integrity. But, I do have a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ, due to being involved in church in my youth. I never could understand how any person can claim to follow the teachings of Christ and at the same time stand with someone who has basically lived his life doing the opposite of what Jesus would. It’s always baffled me and, to be honest, reaffirmed my theory that for a large portion of the religion it was just about status and fitting in. I’d almost be willing to bet money that Donald Trump really doesn’t give a damn whether abortion is legal or not and he’s just pandering to his supporters. But I’m encouraged to see a publication that represents Christianity standing behind the tenants of the religion over everything and everyone and calling a spade and spade, like they are supposed to do. 

You nailed him on abortion.  People eat up whatever he spews disregarding his lifetime of evidence to the contrary. That’s more disappointing than trump himself. Most of these people are not dumb enough to think trump is not a pathological liar and unapologetic sinner. They don’t care. It has ruined the chances that many of us would join in an organized church. Most of us believe what we need to believe to feel accountable. ( do unto others....). I think we are either good or bad deep inside. Organized religion is just a fear tactic to keep the bad in line. I can’t get on board with a person claiming to save me from hell who wears a Trump hat. 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

 

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Most evangelical Christians have rejected Christ’s teachings for Trump’s judges.

There's no religion forum, so since it's intertwined with this subject, here goes. The Bible and Jesus' teachings are claimed to be interpreted correctly but poorly lived out by both political sides, from the beginning of inception to present. It's never been the message, just the erroneous, imperfect way Christ's followers then and now live it out. At least many are trying, despite growing obstacles and deepening darkness. If what we believe is true about eternity, we'll all have a chance to see what the truth turns out to be. Don't anticipate any gloating at that time, just unbridled weeping, both of humble gratitude and unfathomable regret. Not pushing, just "First Amendment-ing" for myself alone. ❤

I won't speak for most. I'll speak for me. I have my hands absolutely full knowing that I'll have enough for God to examine when He decides my time on earth is complete. As for now, His Word tells me to get my house in order and pray for those who lead our human systems. We're blessed to have the opportunity as free Americans to vote and choose, even if we detest the results. 

I think the reason it's easy to criticize our present leaders are twofold.

1. There is a LOT to critique. 😁

2. It takes the focus off of us and our own culpability in the face of divine/human perfection. Even atheists and agnostics will find out one day if they've chosen wisely.  That choice must be free, but it...and its consequences...exist for us each. ❤

I'm going to guess that if we all, from coast to coast, in the Swamp and out, stayed as busy with #2, #1 might improve. But if not, that's on him, not us.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Predictably, as if they took their cues from certain members here, folks like Franklin Graham and Trump attempting to vilify and dismiss Christianity Today as infiltrated by liberals or part of the "far left."

Pathetic.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I wouldn’t call myself a man of faith, However,  I try to live my life with the do unto others rule and stay mindful to hold my moral integrity. But, I do have a basic understanding of the teachings of Christ, due to being involved in church in my youth. I never could understand how any person can claim to follow the teachings of Christ and at the same time stand with someone who has basically lived his life doing the opposite of what Jesus would. It’s always baffled me and, to be honest, reaffirmed my theory that for a large portion of the religion it was just about status and fitting in. I’d almost be willing to bet money that Donald Trump really doesn’t give a damn whether abortion is legal or not and he’s just pandering to his supporters. But I’m encouraged to see a publication that represents Christianity standing behind the tenants of the religion over everything and everyone and calling a spade and spade, like they are supposed to do. 

So when religious people are judgmental about abortion. homosexuality,  etc.  they are told to stay out of politics.....but it's OK in this instance?.    But it's a free country so he can write what he wants and let the chips fall where they may.   Not gonna debate the subject of his reasoning again since it's being done on this site all day long but does seem that the editor has made some accusations that are not supported by evidence. Next month I expect we should read about Biden dropping out of the race for getting a foreign government official fired to protect his son from an investigation. 

JMO but from my reading of the bible, Jesus mostly associated with the sinners and tax collectors.. (love that category) and warned about judging others.   I'm not sure there are categories of sins, some being worse than others,  but all of us being sinners in one way or the other it's probably not too good an idea to decide which sinner has the greater sin and call them out ….and not publicly confess your own sins.

Much to the dismay of some folks, it appears that evangelicals might not as judgmental as non-Christians claim them to be....or wish them to be.    We all live in a pragmatic and secular world and have to balance our religious beliefs (such as they are)  with actual events....and make them co-exist as best as possible. 

[ToraGirl 5,498]

As well, some churches strive to be Acts 2 in nature, living simply, loving broadly. The term "organized religion" doesn't come close to describing the stable-manger-like (by 2019 comparison to the mega-fancy existence) we at ours experience in serving/loving in our local one. That, too, will please the heart of God one day, requiring mankind's heart/life surrender on the terms He first modeled and now asks of us.  OR, if He turns out not to exist, it will at least lessen the struggle of the homeless, the coatless, the waterless, and the hungry of our locals and globals. We can do so much more together... but I agree that it's a near impossible search to find the community of believers that works to be what I'm blessed to describe. Churches don't need to be, deserve to be, or appreciate being lumped any more than we individuals do.

And many of us, speaking for a few more than me this time, are growing ever-increasingly content with letting God sort it all out when He is ready...hearts, actions, motives, and all...while we keep one eye in the mirror and the other out toward making something better for the least, the lost, and the lonely.

Just a word of encouragement...don't give up the search for that place if you feel that nudge. They exist. They need you, warts and all! You have something to offer that no one else can, and though the Plan will go forth with or without you, there are untold blessings awaiting for you and others if you take the plunge to consider the Source. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,004]

7 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Much to the dismay of some folks, it appears that evangelicals might not as judgmental as non-Christians claim them to be....or wish them to be.    We all live in a pragmatic and secular world and have to balance our religious beliefs (such as they are)  with actual events....and make them co-exist as best as possible. 

How is this true? It sure seems like they are just as judge mental as ever, but they just choose who and what they judge, based on things that have less to do with their religious texts actually teach and more to do with who panders to what they have been told is good and bad by their leaders. 
 

And to answer the first part of your response, there is a difference between a magazine not affiliated with the federal government standing up for their beliefs and legislating based on those beliefs. The latter SHOULD keep their religions beliefs out of politics. 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

36 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So when religious people are judgmental about abortion. homosexuality,  etc.  they are told to stay out of politics.....but it's OK in this instance?.    But it's a free country so he can write what he wants and let the chips fall where they may.   Not gonna debate the subject of his reasoning again since it's being done on this site all day long but does seem that the editor has made some accusations that are not supported by evidence. Next month I expect we should read about Biden dropping out of the race for getting a foreign government official fired to protect his son from an investigation. 

JMO but from my reading of the bible, Jesus mostly associated with the sinners and tax collectors.. (love that category) and warned about judging others.   I'm not sure there are categories of sins, some being worse than others,  but all of us being sinners in one way or the other it's probably not too good an idea to decide which sinner has the greater sin and call them out ….and not publicly confess your own sins.

Much to the dismay of some folks, it appears that evangelicals might not as judgmental as non-Christians claim them to be....or wish them to be.    We all live in a pragmatic and secular world and have to balance our religious beliefs (such as they are)  with actual events....and make them co-exist as best as possible. 

Got any Scripture quoting Christ that actually supports that view or is he passé, too?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

 

Quote

 

Christianity Today editor defends calling for Trump's removal
The editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine that has been publishing since
1956, on Friday defended writing an editorial that calls for President Trump's removal from office.

"It's not like I have any personal animus against the president," Mark Galli told NPR. "But he does display characteristics that I think as a leader of a great nation like the United States are deeply problematic."

The editorial hit like a bombshell when it was published online Thursday with the headline "Trump should be removed from office," due to the prominence of the magazine and the fact that Trump has enjoyed consistent support from the majority of evangelicals during his time in office.

In March, 78 percent of evangelicals in a survey said they approved of Trump's job performance, according to the Pew Research Center.

“To be the most charitable to my brothers and sisters, I do think they are passionately concerned about pro-life issues," Galli told NPR, noting that most Christians are also "passionately concerned about religious freedom issues."

"So I will give them that, in that sense that Trump has done a very good job of defending those causes in our minds," he said. "But we've gotten to a point where those things no longer balance the scale.”

He went on to compare Trump to an abusive husband who might be a "good provider" but "needs to leave the house."

Galli noted that in 1998 the magazine criticized President Clinton for "unsavory dealings and immoral acts" and said his editorial about Trump was "very consistent" with that.

Trump "slanders people, he tells us, he mischaracterizes people, he outright lies, he says things that are verbally abusive to others," he said.

"These are all moral problems," he continued. "You don't have to even be a religious person to recognize that they’re moral problems."

The editorial evoked condemnation from a number of evangelical leaders.

Franklin Graham, the son of magazine founder Billy Graham, told The Washington Post his father "would’ve been very embarrassed that the magazine he started would call for something like this when there are no crimes committed."

"I disagree with him on that," Galli told NPR of Graham. "That's all I can say."

Trump has also attacked the magazine over the editorial, tweeting on Friday that it is "far left" and "has been doing poorly."

“Nobody considers us as far-left,” Galli told the Post, following Trump's tweets. “We don’t comment on larger national issues except when they rise to a level of moral influence. He’s characterizing our magazine of political passion and that’s not who we are.”

Galli wrote the editorial days before he plans to step down as editor-in-chief of the magazine in January.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/475468-christianity-today-editor-defends-calling-for-trumps-removal

 

 

[AU64 10,122]

51 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Predictably, as if they took their cues from certain members here, folks like Franklin Graham and Trump attempting to vilify and dismiss Christianity Today as infiltrated by liberals or part of the "far left."

Pathetic.

"Infiltrated" ?    It is much more than that.    What is pathetic is that you obviously do not know much about Christian leadership in the US for the past few decades.    And of course, the Grahams have not been associated with the magazine for quite some time though I guess it still gets some cache' from implying differently.     Not saying they are not Christian...just that they are not necessarily right nor do they represent Christians in general. 

Otherwise, the leaders of most Protestant denominations are far left, much more so than the membership which is one reason people are bailing out on them.  Further for example,  most of the writings and opinions attributed to the United Methodist Church are  actually the opinions of a handful of people at the top are not necessarily "the church".   They got the jobs and have the right to express their views like any pastor,  but anyone outside of the denomination who thinks their views are the views of the membership is fooling themselves.   

So why not for the magazine?  ....and I am willing to bet that prior to the linked article, you have never read a single copy of the magazine or know what other religious or social  positions it has taken in the past.    Likely just latched onto something that fits your view and ran with it.   

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

"Infiltrated" ?    It is much more than that.    What is pathetic is that you obviously do not know much about Christian leadership in the US for the past few decades.    And of course, the Grahams have not been associated with the magazine for quite some time though I guess it still gets some cache' from implying differently.     Not saying they are not Christian...just that they are not necessarily right nor do they represent Christians in general. 

Otherwise, the leaders of most Protestant denominations are far left, much more so than the membership which is one reason people are bailing out on them.  Further for example,  most of the writings and opinions attributed to the United Methodist Church are  actually the opinions of a handful of people at the top are not necessarily "the church".   They got the jobs and have the right to express their views like any pastor,  but anyone outside of the denomination who thinks their views are the views of the membership is fooling themselves.   

So why not for the magazine?  ....and I am willing to bet that prior to the linked article, you have never read a single copy of the magazine or know what other religious or social  positions it has taken in the past.    Likely just latched onto something that fits your view and ran with it.   

Good thing I didn't take you up on that bet.  You'd lose bigly.

I am very familiar with the magazize, its editor and its writers.  Read it for years.  I'm a subscriber.   I'm not speculating or hoping.  CT is thoroughly evangelical, theologically and biblically orthodox.  Attempts to paint the source as tainted by liberals are simply complete poppycock.

Do better.

 

[AU64 10,122]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Good thing I didn't take you up on that bet.  You'd lose bigly.

I am very familiar with the magazize, its editor and its writers.  Read it for years.  I'm a subscriber.   I'm not speculating or hoping.  CT is thoroughly evangelical, theologically and biblically orthodox.  Attempts to paint the source as tainted by liberals are simply complete poppycock.

Do better.

 

My apologies on your familiarity with it....so then you should have known it has a social agenda and not have been surprised by this piece.  

And you can address the issue of sin, forgiveness and judgment and who casts the first stone. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

My apologies on your familiarity with it....so then you should have known it has a social agenda and not have been surprised by this piece.  

And you can address the issue of sin, forgiveness and judgment and who casts the first stone. 

I've read it off and on for 30 years.  I'm aware that they are solidly evangelical and biblically orthodox and that they approach social issues from that perspective.  Nothing they said would be abrogated by Christ's speech on judging.

[homersapien 11,367]

11 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

My only question here...Why did this take over three years to come out? 

DJT was rotten before he ran for office..,

Exactly.

And the fact that most Democrats and a LOT - if not most - "independents" recognize this basic fact about Trump undermines the purely partisan take/spin regarding Trump's opposition.

To wit (from the subject essay):

"Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion."

And you hear the same sort of thing from Republicans on a daily basis, for example, how Democrats are trying to reverse the election by committing themselves to impeaching Trump from day one (presumably without a specific cause in mind.)

My feeling is that many, many people recognized Trump for what he is and always has been.  It has little or nothing to do with the fact he happens to be a Republican president. 

It was inevitable that he would commit impeachable offenses - it's simply in his nature.  And he will continue to do so until he is voted out of office. This has far less to do with political partisanship - at least from the Trump opposition perspective - than it does with the basic, inherent nature of the man's unfitness for office.

Thankfully, Mark Galli of CT is finally acknowledging that.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Pretty much.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

I find the article fascinating. I appreciated the guy's opinion. It makes perfect sense for him to talk about how Trump's actions do and do not line up with Christian teaching. I also find it disturbing that he feels qualified to determine whether Trump should be removed from office. Is there a requirement that a POTUS must meet someone's definition of moral? Should this guy let us know who is morally fit to be POTUS before we vote in 2020?

Trump is almost morally bankrupt based on everything I see. That does not disqualify him from being POTUS. Galli is well qualified to determine whether Trump's actions are Biblical, but he is woefully unqualified to determine whether Trump should be removed from office via the impeachment process. I look forward to having a morally competent candidate to vote for in 2020 for a change.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I find the article fascinating. I appreciated the guy's opinion. It makes perfect sense for him to talk about how Trump's actions do and do not line up with Christian teaching. I also find it disturbing that he feels qualified to determine whether Trump should be removed from office. Is there a requirement that a POTUS must meet someone's definition of moral? Should this guy let us know who is morally fit to be POTUS before we vote in 2020?

Trump is almost morally bankrupt based on everything I see. That does not disqualify him from being POTUS. Galli is well qualified to determine whether Trump's actions are Biblical, but he is woefully unqualified to determine whether Trump should be removed from office via the impeachment process. I look forward to having a morally competent candidate to vote for in 2020 for a change.

I think you may have missed what the author is saying here.  During the impeachment of Clinton, the same publication called for his removal based on moral grounds.  For the sake of consistency, they are doing the same with Trump.

While morality is certainly not a requirement to be POTUS, the author is saying that if someone as a Christian witness screamed about Clinton's morality and unfitness for office based on those grounds (and there were many) but not about Trump's, then said person is inherently being hypocritical.  The identifying political party of the leader should have no bearing on morality standards for those who vote and claim themselves to be Christian.

[Auburn85 432]

I know this is the serious political forum, but I wanted to post this. 

 

The language is bad, but it describes what came to mind after all that Trump has said and done, now they back away .

 

Again Language Warning

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]