Pete Buttigieg Slams Evangelicals for Supporting Trump

His remarks start at the 11:35 mark:

Sadly, everything he says here about Trump and evangelicals is correct.

The evangelicals who support Trump should take Buttigieg’s remarks seriously.  He is the latest commentator to expose the dark side of evangelical politics.

Expect Trump’s court evangelicals to double down today.  Perhaps some stuff similar to this:

 

18 thoughts on “Pete Buttigieg Slams Evangelicals for Supporting Trump

  1. Unicorn
    ,
    It wasn’t immediately after Nixon that the Christians made an alliance with the GOP. They had to endure a couple of years with good old Jerry Ford who stumbled around on the issues. Jerry also gave us John Paul Stevens——-hardly a poster boy for Judeo-Christian values.

    As far as Christians being a “wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump Tower” you have erroneously reversed it. To the contrary, Trump is beholding to the Christians and very responsive to their goals. He can’t get re-elected without their support.

    James

    Like

  2. “Working Relationship”?

    More like since 2016, the Born-Again Bible-Believing Evangelicals have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump Tower. Ownership transferred from being a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP since the late Seventies/Early Eighties..

    To listen to these guys (and Wondering Eagle has a regular troll who’s a doozy), Jesus Christ Himself bends the knee and burns the pinch of incense in Praise and Adoration of Trump. (Doesn’t sound like that Rabbi from Nazareth to me; how about you?)

    There’s a story that as LBJ was signing the Civil Rights Act, he said in an aside that “This’ll have those N*gg*rs voting straight-ticket Democrat for the next hundred years!” (Always looking for a secure fanatical “pocket borough” constituency; to know LBJ was to NOT like him.) And post-Nixon, the GOP redefined itself as “GOD’s Own Party” and started doing the same by promising Overturn of Roe v Wade and restoring Prayer in Schools, just elect us.

    Like

  3. Sheridan,
    Well, I am not sure if the book can be trusted or not, but that should not prevent Obama from playing a game or two with The Donald. Obama can watch diligently to insure that Trump’s caddy does not spread oil or grease on his balls, for example.
    The best time for them to play is Sunday morning since neither is especially enamored of divine services.

    Like

  4. James – If I were Obama’s advisor, I would recommend he not play golf with Trump because as the title of the book “Commander in Cheat” says, Trump cheats.

    Like

  5. Sheridan,

    Ha ha. I love to do my regular gym work-outs and runs, but golf just moves far too slowly for me. I really tried to “get into it” but failed. A real sleeper sport!
    Maybe the current president and the previous president should get together for eighteen harmonious and collegial holes on the links. 😎
    James

    Like

  6. James – It is interesting that you mention Obama and his golfing. However, did you know that Trump loves golf so much that he owns 17 golf courses? And, did you know that a new book just came out about Trump and his golfing. It is called “Commander in Cheat.” I am sure you will want to put that important book on your to-read list. Right?

    Like

  7. Dave H.

    First, I am going to agree with you that God’s promises to Israel are not directly applicable to America. Each time I hear a preacher cite II Chronicles 7:14 as the basis for a national revival in our country, I respect his goals but view him as guilty of scriptural misapplication.

    Second, when evangelicals focus solely on themselves as recipients of President Trump’s political largesse, they are being myopic. There are plenty of traditional Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and unaligned Christians who believe that their interests were not previously are now being minded.

    Third, you are correct that some believers are wont to focus more on some sins than others. Yet you miss a critical point. Nobody trumpets gluttony, gossip, lying, thievery, etc. as acceptable. This is not the case with certain other sins which are described in warm tones by certain elements of our society. When Christians attack these sins, it is in response to progressive promotion of them.

    Finally, I will agree with you, Dave, that Christians have done a bit of gloating over their victories. While I won’t defend it, it is an understandable reaction after having been relegated to the dark and dank cellar for the previous eight years.
    James

    Like

  8. Understood on the types, but I was actually primarily thinking of the personal/spiritual and not the corporate (because I question whether God has any promises specifically towards a country, as I reject the notion that promises made in the Old Testament to the nation of Israel are directly applicable today to the USA or any other country). I am referring to individual fellow Christians who elevate and celebrate a bully, in large part BECAUSE he is a bully towards people they have been trained to see as enemies and to detest. I am referring to fellow Christians who focus entirely and solely on that subset of sins that allows them to self-righteously point fingers at others while saying not a word about sins which are clearly portrayed and which occupy far more space in the Bible than those sins they focus on, and which are often characteristic of those they support. I am referring to fellow Christians who see anyone who disagrees with them—politically or theologically—as enemies to be destroyed rather than as fellow creations to whom they should be salt and light and reflections of the gospel message. I am referring to fellow Christians who are perfectly fine with allowing and defending unchecked authority in a government strongman, simply because they like certain policies and because doing so “owns the libs” (high-five!). I look at this situation and the prevalence of such things brings me to the point of walking away from evangelicalism, not because I have changed my theological ethos but rather because I HAVEN’T changed it, while the fruits I increasingly see around me seem to me to be largely inconsistent with that ethos.

    Like

  9. Alex,

    I agree that there is a working relationship between the GOP and traditional Christians of all denominations——not just evangelicals. (I disagree that Christians have compromised their values by working with the Republicans.) At the same time, certain secular DEM interest groups have a close functional bond with the Democrats. That’s their right. All of this reciprocity on both sides of the aisle is simply called democracy.

    James

    Like

  10. Tony,
    I think it would help you understand John’s points if you read his book. Not to put words in John’s mouth, but I believe the prevailing criticism is that the GOP has significant influence over the Church in America via their “Playbook” in ways and degree the DNC does not. President Trump is a regular topic here because he has been very effective at showing that influence as court evangelicals bend or break their own morals supporting his most objectionable policies and defending his most indefensible actions.
    The example closest to my heart is that climate denial does not exist outside of conservative politics in fossil fuel rich countries. Encountering the prevalence of climate denial in my church has shown me that the GOP’s influence over the Church in America is a very real problem with very high stakes.

    Like

  11. Expect Trump’s court evangelicals to double down today.

    Because Buttigieg hath blasphemed their REAL Personal LORD and Savior.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Dave H.

    I concur with your general assessment of fruit-bearing. Keep in mind, however, that there are various types of fruit. Some of it is personal and spiritual which is what Christ taught. Other fruit is political and to mix the two varieties is akin to putting an English riding saddle on a cow.

    James

    Like

  13. Rick,

    You have a point about the “two way street” of criticism. I don’t know what Franklin Graham said about Barack Obama’s religion, but there are two aspects to the religious critique of a political leader. The first is his/her personal behavior and faith; the second is the morality of the politician’s public policy.

    President Trump’s devotion to his personal faith and to Christian morality is rightly questionable. On the other hand, his general pursuit of Judeo-Christian public policy goals is commendable. Let’s look also at President Obama. He was not as outwardly boorish and bombastic as Trump, but he showed no real personal interest in church or in matters spiritual. Sundays were an excellent time for perfecting his golf game rather than his Christian walk. Sadly, Obama’s public policy was, for the most part, void of Christian underpinnings.

    I am not going to indorse Ralph Reed on this one. Mayor Pete has a right to critique Trump’s personal inconsistency as he sees it. By the same token, rank and file Christians have the right to critique someone like the mayor who skillfully employs vague, pseudo-Christian verbiage while neither living a Biblical life nor espousing Christian public policies. F. Chuck Todd’s interview was loaded with softball questions, the answers for which Mayor Pete had deftly prepared.

    James

    Like

  14. John: I believe that it was both reasonable and justifiable for Christians to have refused to vote for Trump due to his moral failings and fundamental lack of character. While we are not in a position to assess the condition of his heart, his actions suggest he is not a Christian, certainly not one who takes his faith seriously.

    I also believe that it was equally reasonable and justifiable for Christians to support Trump at the polls, while fully cognizant of his manifest flaws, because the candidate opposing him was morally compromised (to say nothing of the policies she would have pursued, including support for unrestricted abortion on demand and the ever-expanding LGBT agenda). She was a candidate with a well-documented history of lying, corruption and unscrupulous pursuit of power. She, too, exhibited none of the virtues of the Christian life.

    If, as you argue, it was an unmitigated wrong for Christians to vote for Trump, then it was just as wrong for them to vote for Hillary. Your absolute rejection of the one, but acceptance of the other, on moral grounds, remains baffling to me.

    As for Buttigieg, your anodyne reference to him as a “commentator” — like, say, Ross Douthat or Michael Smerconsish — is facile. He, along with seemingly every other D in captivity, is running for President against (very likely) Trump. He’s hardly a neutral arbiter, and his motivation for offering such commentary is not exactly Pauline in its spiritual altruism.

    Like

  15. They see themselves as the Only True Guardians of the Faith, and so only they may properly attack the faith of others.

    In recent years I have been spending a lot of time considering the vivid word picture presented in the gospels regarding a good tree not producing bad fruit, and vice versa. I’m really seeing a lot of bad trees. (This is not to say that we don’t make mistakes; all of us do, but the message is that if you are consistently seeing bad fruit, you’re not dealing with a good tree.)

    Like

  16. Something something sheep’s clothing something something ravenous wolves something something fruits something something something something.

    Like

  17. As a politically moderate evangelical, I have been trying very hard to distinguish between the evangelicals expressing approval for this or that policy from the evangelicals who are intent on stomping down any criticism of Trump’s actions or words and labeling anyone who dares to do so as a heretical opponent of God.

    I understand some (not all, but some) of the concerns on the part of the first group, and we can agree or disagree on the various policies and debate their merits. The second group is nothing but idol worshipers (and, in the case of the national evangelical leaders, sycophants and power-grabbers) and they have disqualified themselves from me ever again taking seriously anything they have to say about faith. Ever.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Franklin Graham had no problem with attacking the faith of Barack Obama, on national TV. Did Ralph Reed speak up about that?

    Like

Comments are closed.