Understanding the times

A few thoughts about a lot of things that illuminate the era in which we find ourselves

When I set out to write this piece, I thought I’d discuss what has probably become the most infamous commencement speech in recent memory. I certainly have some thoughts on it, although my view is relatively nuanced and not inflammatory—at least, I think so. However, it feels like piling on to devote an entire article to the topic, especially since an order of nuns rebuked him. Being scolded by nuns from an order called Mt. Saint Scholastica, the perfect designation for an order that founded and remained affiliated with a women’s college, is probably worse than having the corporate office distance themselves from him or me writing another opinion piece about him.

Frankly, I’m not feeling sorry for Mr. Butker; he’s not going to lose his job because he’s one of the best kickers in the National Football League. The owner’s wife and daughter are supporting him. His jersey sales jumped to near the top of the NFL.com sales chart and surpassed those of superstar quarterback Patrick Mahomes and future NFL Hall of Fame tight end and Taylor Swift boyfriend Travis Kelce to become the Kansas City Chiefs’ best-seller. I suspect the extra cash in his wallet from those jersey sales offers sufficient cushioning from the butt-kicking he’s getting from about half the country. Yes, that’s a terrible pun about a placekicker named Butker, and I am only mildly apologetic about it!

However, as amazed as I am by the breadth and intensity of the reaction to his speech, I am not surprised to see how divided we are on the topics he addressed. It is where we are as a nation, and we didn’t need this controversy to reach that conclusion. Let me offer perhaps the most ironic example.

The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the most conservative of the Presbyterian denominations, decided to host a seminar entitled “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” They invited lawyer and New York Times columnist David French to join the panel. David has written extensively about the perils of polarization, including “his admirably measured book,” Divided We Fall: America's Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation, in which he addresses polarization from the left and the right. However, he is also a committed Christian who has long been critical of the white evangelical church’s capitulation to Donald Trump and his populist political movement, and that was too much for the PCA’s conservative members.

The backlash from people objecting to his political views was so intense that they canceled the panel and apologized for extending him the invitation. Pastor Curtis Chang, a colleague of David’s and founder of Redeeming Babel, an organization committed in part to addressing the problem of “a misshapen approach to politics” in the church, pilloried the PCA for their decision:

The PCA canceled David because it could not even tolerate hearing from a fellow Christian —David French — who might hold different views from some of its members on various partisan issues,” Chang said. “The PCA canceled David because it is elevating partisan differences over shared fidelity to Jesus.

In other words, the church polarization seminar canceled polarization expert David French because he was too polarizing! Given his balanced and thoughtful analyses over the years on political polarization and its negative impact on society, David’s cancellation by the PCA is thick with irony.

In a recent New York Times article, David illustrated the impossibility of penetrating the partisan mind:

If you are a true partisan, you essentially become an unpaid lawyer for your side. Every “good” fact that bolsters your argument is magnified. Every “bad” fact is minimized or rationalized. When partisanship reaches its worst point, every positive claim about your side is automatically believed, and every negative allegation is automatically disbelieved. In fact, allegations of wrongdoing directed at your side are treated as acts of aggression — proof that “they” are trying to destroy “us.”

He characterizes this process as “a kind of divorce from reality,” where your side can do no wrong, even when the evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming, and the other side can do no right, even if every objective measure of positive progress is in their favor.

The ongoing hush money trial of Donald Trump in New York City is a prime example of this reality distortion field. The pilgrimage of Republican elected officials to the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse on 100 Centre Street in support of Trump is unlike anything I’ve seen in American politics. Without the benefit of sitting on the grand jury that heard all the evidence and issued the indictment, these politicians have already declared the trial a “sham” and attacked everyone involved in it, including the Manhattan district attorney and the judge.

Aside from the obvious fact that they were summoned to disparage the individuals involved in the trial that Trump himself cannot speak of because of a gag order, the visual of them lining up behind Trump in matching dark suits and red ties is stunning in its sycophancy. I can’t recall a time in American history when so many people willingly subordinated their independence of thought and action and their responsibility to their constituents, who should come first, to do the bidding of one man.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” and their primary duty is to the people who elected them. However, rather than doing their jobs in Washington, D.C., they’re spending hours in a courtroom to curry Donald Trump’s favor.

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), the Speaker of the House, is besmirching the prestige and integrity of his office, second in the line of succession to the presidency, to parrot Trump’s attacks on a criminal justice system he believes should bend to his will.

Meanwhile, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) devotes a significant amount of her time to filing ethics complaints against the judges and prosecutors involved in Trump’s many criminal trials, which has nothing to do with meeting the needs of her constituents in New York’s 21st District.

The peak of Trump idolatry is represented by Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), who is unashamed to say what is obvious to everyone: “Everything that we do in the House of Representatives should be in the best interests of getting Donald Trump re-elected.” Nehls made this statement while wearing a necktie featuring images of the former president. He also said that “Trump is right all the time” and that Speaker Johnson should be “consulting with Donald Trump on just about everything we do.” Nehl’s unabashed adoration of Trump prompted Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ) to declare:

Elected Republicans think their #1 job in office is helping Donald Trump. Not aiding the people, not protecting America, serving Trump. The Republican Party is unfit to govern America and doesn’t give a damn about you.

It is indisputable that, as far as the overwhelming majority of GOP elected officials are concerned, theirs is not a government of, by, and for the people but of, by, and for Trump. The fact that he can command such allegiance should warn us all about the fragility of our representative form of government. Unquestioned loyalty is reserved for tyrants, crime lords, and cult leaders, not those who lead by the consent of the governed.

Perhaps more disturbing is that their obsequiousness toward Trump is at the expense of the institutions and structures installed to ensure a functioning democratic republic. Never mind that the same legal system that indicted Trump has a Democratic U.S. senator on trial and a Democratic U.S. congressman indicted for their alleged crimes, suggesting its impartiality in pursuit of justice. Never mind that in every instance, a grand jury of ordinary American citizens doing their civic duty, listening to and weighing the evidence, indicted Trump, not President Biden, Attorney General Garland, Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith, Manhattan D.A. Bragg, Fulton County D.A. Fanni Willis, or the Democratic National Committee.

The fact that the legal system accuses the one to whom they have sworn unwavering loyalty is the only justification Trump loyalists need to declare it corrupt and untrustworthy. It mirrors the steady erosion of the American electoral system by their persistent claims of fraud, no matter how many times they’ve been debunked in court or by election security experts in the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. The rule of law and the democratic process are only valid if they favor Trump. Not only is that “a kind of divorce from reality” and an unobstructed pathway to autocratic rule, but it is idolatry, a sin that has millions of professed Christians in its snare.

Most of these elected officials who pridefully declare themselves to be Christians have forgotten the lessons of the Bible when they declare Trump to be “without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19). The apostle Paul, writing to the church in Rome comprised of Jews and Gentiles, emphasizes that it is not just the Gentiles who are incapable of saving themselves through acts of righteousness, but also the Jews, God’s chosen people to whom the Law was given. Paul reached back into the Old Testament to rebuke the Jews, who believed they were more righteous and deserving of God's mercy than the Gentiles:

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:17-24)

That last statement certainly hits home. As I’ve written many times in the past, the greatest threat to Christianity in America isn’t from outside the church but from those within the church whose public conduct dishonors God among non-believers. Paul says a church leader “must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap” (1 Timothy 3:7). However, corruption and abuse by church leaders have driven so many from Christ that there are more people with no religious affiliation than any other cohort, including Catholics and evangelical Protestants.

Paul goes on to say to the church in Rome, “What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin” (Romans 3:9). Despite what the politicians proclaim in front of the courthouse, Donald Trump is as susceptible to sin as any of us. Under our laws, although accused, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, that proof must come from our justice system, not the partisan bloviations of elected officials, who should let the law run its course, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong” (Romans 13:3).

So while cultural Christian conservatives across the nation fall prostrate at the feet of Donald Trump, David French, whose only court appearances have been as an accomplished advocate for religious liberty in America, is deemed too polarizing by a Christian church, ostensibly a beacon of unity in a time of division, because he refuses to commit idolatry and worship Trump. I shared the news about David’s plight with my dear friend, writer, and scholar Karen Swallow Prior. However, she had been following the conservative backlash against him and was already aware of the outcome. Her words struck a chord with me: “Things feel so heavy and hard right now.”

Indeed. When Christians should be urging the people toward unity and peace, they are instead stirring dissent, declaring enemies of other people, including other believers, and adopting the malice of the world rather than the sword of the Spirit as their weapon of choice. I mentioned earlier that I had some thoughts on Mr. Butker’s commencement speech, and my main critique is that it was intended to inflame rather than inspire, which is the purpose of such a speech. He sees all who hold a different view from him as enemies of the truth, and if all you see are enemies, all you know is war. He wielded his words as a sword to strike down those he perceived as his adversaries, and that's where so many people who proclaim Christ reside today.

However, Jesus never encouraged us to take up arms, real or rhetorical, against our fellow image-bearers of God. Jesus couldn’t have been more explicit when he rebuked Peter for drawing a weapon and striking at one of the men sent to arrest Jesus.

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. (Luke 22:49-51)

Other Gospel accounts identify Peter as the disciple who cut off the ear of Malchus, the high priest’s servant (John 18:10). In Matthew 26:52, Jesus made this well-known declaration: “Put your sword back in its place…For all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Taking the full episode into account, Jesus illustrated the response Christians should have to the world’s strife. Not only did he command Peter to sheathe his weapon, but he healed the man Peter had wounded, even though he was there to do Jesus harm. He also invoked the supremacy of God’s will:

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” (Matthew 26:53-54)

Think about the times during Jesus’ ministry when the authorities and the crowds they commanded meant to harm him, but he slipped from their grasp or was “hidden” from them (Luke 4:29-30; John 7:30; John 8:59; John 10:39). While he was on mission, he was under God’s constant protection, and His appointed time had not yet come.

A mentor of mine introduced me to a passage of Scripture in the First Book of Chronicles, which spoke of the descendants of Jacob and Leah’s son Issachar: “From Issachar, men who understood the times and knew what Israel should do—200 chiefs, with all their relatives under their command” (1 Chronicles 12:32). Their ability to discern the times in which they found themselves and what their kingdom must do as a result was invaluable to King David, and Jesus Himself spoke of understanding the times or, in this instance, the people’s inability to do so:

He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time? (Luke 12: 54-56)

Paul also emphasized the importance of understanding the times and acting accordingly, stating:

And do this, understanding the present time: The hour has already come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Romans 13:11-12)

In effect, Paul is telling Christians to “stay woke” and not miss the opportunity to do good during “heavy and hard” times. Jesus ministered at a time of great oppression by the secular and religious authorities, and “When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matthew 9:36). Jesus blessed the peacemakers and rebuked those who took up the sword. He didn’t fear for his safety because He trusted God’s plan for His life.

The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. (John 10:18)

Perhaps more importantly, He never demonized anyone or excluded them from his touch, even though He knew their hearts as God knows all of us.

• He healed the Roman centurion’s servant, even though the Romans were the brutal occupiers of Israel, the nation of God’s covenant with Abraham (Luke 7:1-10).

• He invited a tax collector, the most reviled and corrupt of the Jewish people, to be a disciple (Matthew 9:9).

• He broke bread with sinners (Matthew 9:10-13).

• He washed the feet of the man He knew would betray Him (John 13:1-17).

• He healed the ear of the high priest’s servant, even though he came to arrest him (Luke 22:50-51).

• In His suffering, He invited the thief on the cross to join Him in heaven (Luke 23:39-43).

When you look across the landscape at those with whom you fundamentally disagree, can you see yourself in communion with them as Jesus was? Or do your political allegiances take precedence over being Christ-like?

Our nation is as divided as it has been short of a civil war. We know that “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25). Regrettably, Christians aren’t immune to these divisions and, in many cases, have contributed to them. We don’t need to ask what Jesus would do because we know what He did to bridge the divide between heaven and earth and between us and the Father, and we know His fervent prayer for all Christians:

[T]hat that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. (John 17:21-23)

As the Civil War, the most significant fracture in American history, was nearing an end, President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was notable for its frequent references to Scripture and Biblical principles, and it marked a change in a man who had not typically expressed a deep faith in God. The ravages of war and personal loss had caused him to contemplate the sovereignty of God and reject the idea that either the North or the South could lay claim to God’s favor. While his Second Inaugural Address was given as the Union was on the brink of victory in the Civil War, it was a speech of reconciliation, not revenge. Historian Dr. Mark A. Knoll states, “That address stands as the most remarkably Christian public statement by any American president.”

The conclusion of his remarks echoes into the present day and speaks emphatically to those of us who follow Christ:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.