Read the entire piece here.
Read the entire piece here.
This is your “Christian” evangelical president. pic.twitter.com/u0478FoSyR
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) December 5, 2018
When the Barack, Michelle, Bill, Hillary, Jimmy, and Rosalyn started reciting it, perhaps he thought the Apostles Creed was some kind of loyalty oath for the Democratic Party.
Here is a taste of Peter Rothpletz’s interview with the CNN anchor at The Yale Politic:
I think Trump and Trumpism is a manifestation of many different parts of American popular cultural and societal evolution including the increasing importance of celebrity, the lack of faith in experts, the populist distrust of intellectualism, the moral compromises made by supporters of Bill Clinton. I think today you see Evangelicals making compromises about President Trump similar to how in the 90s we saw feminists making compromises about Bill Clinton. He and his personal behavior were reprehensible to everything that they stood for in terms of feminism but by the same token he was taking many feminist, progressive, capital D Democratic actions… The same can be said when it comes to President Trump with conservative Evangelical Christians.
Read the entire interview here.
Earlier today we did a post on Franklin Graham’s statement that Donald Trump’s adulterous affair with Stormy Daniels was “nobody’s business.” His views on these things have apparently changed. This 1998 piece is really revealing:
Few people have lived a more public life over the past 50 years than has my father, Billy Graham. I can assure you that the Billy Graham you see in public is the same one we children have seen at home. He has spent a lifetime making sure that his public ministry is confirmed in his private behavior.
The topic of private vs. public behavior has emerged as perhaps the central moral issue raised by Bill Clinton’s “improper relationship” with Monica Lewinsky. Much of America seems to have succumbed to the notion that what a person does in private has little bearing on his public actions or job performance, even if he is the president of the United States.
Last week Mr. Clinton told 70 million Americans that his adulterous actions with Ms. Lewinsky were a “private” matter “between me, the two people I love the most–my wife and our daughter–and our God.”
But the God of the Bible says that what one does in private does matter. Mr. Clinton’s months-long extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family. If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?
Private conduct does have public consequences. Some of Mr. Clinton’s defenders present King David of the Bible, one of history’s great leaders, as an example as they call on us to forgive and forget the president’s moral failings. Since God pardoned David’s adulterous act with Bathsheba, the reasoning goes, we should similarly forgive Mr. Clinton.
But forgiveness is not the end of David’s story. Huge consequences followed immediately. The prophet Nathan confronted David with the news that while his life would be spared, the life of his child would be extinguished after just seven days on earth. Bathsheba’s husband and others were killed in an attempt to cover up the illicit affair. David, who confessed his sin when confronted by Nathan (perhaps God’s special prosecutor), also witnessed a bloody coup attempt by his own son, Absalom. He was never the same king.
The private acts of any person are never done in secret. God sees and judges all sin, and while He seeks to restore the offender with love and grace, He does not necessarily remove all the consequences of our sin. As a boy I remember my mother telling me of the consequences of sin. Like a boat, whose wake can capsize other boats, sin leaves a wake. Just look at how many have already been pulled under by the wake of the president’s sin: Mr. Clinton’s wife and daughter, Ms. Lewinsky, her parents, White House staff members, friends and supporters, public officials and an unwitting American public.
Mr. Clinton’s sin can be forgiven, but he must start by admitting to it and refraining from legalistic doublespeak. According to the Scripture, the president did not have an “inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky–he committed adultery. He didn’t “mislead” his wife and us–he lied.
Acknowledgment must be coupled with genuine remorse. A repentant spirit that says, “I’m sorry. I was wrong. I won’t do it again. I ask for your forgiveness,” would go a long way toward personal and national healing.\
The scandal of Mr. Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky has forced us to examine the morality of public and private behavior with new intellectual and spiritual vigor. There needs to be no clash between personal conduct and public appearance. Throughout my life, I have seen consistency of the two in the Graham house. I pray this will also be true in the White House.
Thanks to Kyle Mantyla for sending this my way.
Franklin Graham is not the first court evangelical to forget about what he said in 1998.
Click here for James Dobson
Click here for Gary Bauer
A recent poll has found that almost fifty percent of evangelicals say a Donald Trump recommendation would make them more likely to vote for a candidate. Meanwhile, fifty-four percent of evangelicals said a Hillary Clinton endorsement would make them less likely to vote for a candidates.
Here is the list of evangelicals’ most-trusted celebrity endorsers:
Here is the list of evangelical’s least-trusted celebrity endorsers:
Kate Shellnut has a story on this survey at Christianity Today. Read it here.
A few quick observations:
Listen to court evangelical James Dobson speaking to a group called Intercessors for America:
Bill Clinton also had “many opponents.” James Dobson was one of the most vocal of those opponents. Where was Dobson when Clinton needed fasting and prayer? Dobson says “that the Lord played a role in the election of Donald Trump.” Did the Lord play a role in the election of Bill Clinton?
Click here to learn what James Dobson said in 1998 about the essential role of presidential character.
Let’s play Dobson’s game of providential history for a moment. Perhaps Bill Clinton’s impeachment was ordained by God because God knew people like James Dobson and other leaders of the Christian Right would say things about Clinton that would later be raised during the Trump era to show the Christian Right’s hypocrisy. In other words, Clinton was part of God’s divine plan to reveal the hypocrisy of the Christian Right and call His evangelical followers to stop trying to advance His Kingdom through electoral and partisan politics. 🙂
I should also add that many evangelicals are starting to see the hypocrisy inherent in the church on matters related to politics. I talked to several of them yesterday at church. One member of my evangelical congregation, who I met for the first time yesterday, described it this way: “We elected Satan in order to get a Supreme Court justice.”
Stay tuned. I discuss much of this, including Dobson and the rest of the court evangelicals, in my forthcoming Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump. The good folks at Eerdmans Publishing tell me that pre-orders are very important for getting the message of this book to a wide Christian audience.
At the time Gary Bauer wrote this he was the president of American Renewal, a public policy organization that promotes family, faith and freedom. He was also the president of the Family Research Council.. Today he is a prominent court evangelical.
The highly educated people who daily hold forth at our nation’s universities, on the editorial pages of major newspapers, and in network television studios could learn a great deal if they would stop and listen to the wisdom of children. Take, for example, the children who recently gave the New York Times their reaction to the scandal swirling around President Clinton.
Eleven-year-old Keith Lynch of the Bronx said, “He’s lying to people who love him and trust him. That’s no President to me. He should be ashamed of himself for teaching kids bad things.” Tyrone Strother, 15, also of the Bronx, said, “He went to lie school, not law school.”
Cory Hinojosa, a Houston seven-year-old, knows that lying is wrong. When he lies, he says, he gets a “time-out.” Says Cory, “They should give a punishment like not to be President the rest of the year.”
The point here is that children inhabit a moral universe. There is a law, St. Paul says, “written on the hearts of men” that gives us a sense of right and wrong. These kids know right from wrong. Dare we reeducate them to believe that there is no truth, that there are no consequences for bad behavior?
On inauguration day 1993, Bill Clinton led a children’s parade across the Memorial Bridge into Washington. He sought to symbolize his leadership of this new generation. He would be the President to lead all of us into the 21 st Century.
Children, at least those who have already been born, have been at the center of countless Clinton pronouncements during the past six years. Now, however, his bridge to the 21st Century is crumbling, and the children are at grave risk.
These children cannot be set adrift into a culture that tells them that lying is okay, that fidelity is old-fashioned and that character doesn’t count. Every American parent’s job has been made more difficult by this debacle. The virtue deficit has grown.
Day after day, children hear adults saying that it doesn’t matter if the President lied. After all this is just about sex. Everyone lies about sex, they are told. These messages are abominable, and the messengers must be vigorously rebuked.
Our nation has reached a disturbing pass when the mass of allegations and evidence swirling around our President requires parents in every part of the country to clutch the TV remote for fear that some news about the highest official in the land will reach their children’s ears.
The seamy facts under public discussion are shameful enough. But fascination with this story should not be allowed to obscure the deeper lesson these incidents impart. That lesson is this: Character counts–in a people, in the institutions of our society, and in our national leadership.
In character is destiny. Our founders believed and set down in their own words that only a virtuous people could remain free.
Edmund Burke reminded us that people who are enslaved to their passions only “forge their own fetters”–they cannot be free. Those moral chains, in a world where self-government is eroded, swiftly become physical chains of iron.
There are those who say that we must recognize absolute boundaries between public and private behavior. If all that matters is the quality of the job an individual does, then it is the concern of no one that a corporate executive sexually harasses every woman in his vicinity. Or that a securities expert beats his wife. And the lawmaker with his hand out for a bribe is home free, too, so long as he brings back the pork or the local economy hums.
Whatever we believe about these things, we must recognize this: Our nation’s founders believed otherwise. They understood that the fate of the nation they established was mortally linked to the character of the people who inhabited it.
They called such character indispensable. They knew the human truth that private deeds spill over into public philosophy and public actions. And they also knew that the mixture of power with corrupt character was nothing short of deadly.
Samuel Adams, in a letter written in 1775, told a friend, “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country.”
Source: Gary Bauer, “Clinton Corrupts Our National Culture,” Human Events, September 25, 1998. (Cover story).
This article is not online, but you can look it up through Academic Search Complete if your institution subscribes.
Here is Bauer in the Oval Office earlier this year. He is standing to Paula White’s right. (White is in the red dress).
One of my Facebook followers recently called my attention to a 1998 document that has some implications for our present moment. The “Declaration concerning religion, ethnics and the crisis in the Clinton presidency” was signed by religious leaders and scholars seeking to bring some moral clarity to the nation during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.
Look closely at the people who signed this statement. The signers include Catholics, theological liberals, mainline Protestants, progressive evangelicals, evangelicals who might be described as theologically “conservative,” and everyone in-between.
There are parts of this statement that are still useful as we deal with our current president. I am struck that the writer of this statement is reflecting on how to deal with a president–Bill Clinton–who has asked forgiveness for his indiscretions. How does this statement hold up today with a president who does not believe in asking for forgiveness?
Declaration concerning religion, ethics, and the crisis in the Clinton presidency
Declaration concerning religion, ethics, and the crisis in the Clinton presidency
The following declaration can be found at moral-crisis.org, November 16, 1998
The following declaration can be found at moral-crisis.org
To be released on 13 November 1998
As scholars interested in religion and public life, we protest the manipulation of religion and the debasing of moral language in the discussion about presidential responsibility. We believe that serious misunderstandings of repentance and forgiveness are being exploited for political advantage. The resulting moral confusion is a threat to the integrity of American religion and to the foundations of a civil society. In the conviction that politics and morality cannot be separated, we consider the current crisis to be a critical moment in the life of our country and, therefore, offer the following points for consideration:
1. Many of us worry about the political misuse of religion and religious symbols even as we endorse the public mission of our churches, synagogues, and mosques. In particular we are concerned about the distortion that can come by association with presidential power in events like the Presidential Prayer Breakfast on September 11. We fear the religious community is in danger of being called upon to provide authentication for a politically motivated and incomplete repentance that seeks to avert serious consequences for wrongful acts. While we affirm that pastoral counseling sessions are an appropriate, confidential arena to address these issues, we fear that announcing such meetings to convince the public of the President’s sincerity compromises the integrity of religion.
2. We challenge the widespread assumption that forgiveness relieves a person of further responsibility and serious consequences. We are convinced that forgiveness is a relational term that does not function easily within the sphere of constitutional accountability. A wronged party chooses forgiveness instead of revenge and antagonism, but this does not relieve the wrong-doer of consequences. When the President continues to deny any liability for the sins he has confessed, this suggests that the public display of repentance was intended to avoid political disfavor.
3. We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.
4. We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda. Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.
5. We urge the society as a whole to take account of the ethical commitments necessary for a civil society and to seek the integrity of both public and private morality. While partisan conflicts have usually dominated past debates over public morality, we now confront a much deeper crisis, whether the moral basis of the constitutional system itself will be lost. In the present impeachment discussions, we call for national courage in deliberation that avoids ideological division and engages the process as a constitutional and ethical imperative. We ask Congress to discharge its current duty in a manner mindful of its solemn constitutional and political responsibilities. Only in this way can the process serve the good of the nation as a whole and avoid further sensationalism.
6. While some of us think that a presidential resignation or impeachment would be appropriate and others envision less drastic consequences, we are all convinced that extended discussion about constitutional, ethical, and religious issues will be required to clarify the situation and to enable a wise decision to be made. We hope to provide an arena in which such discussion can occur in an atmosphere of scholarly integrity and civility without partisan bias.
The following scholars subscribe to the Declaration:
1. Paul J. Achtemeier (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
2. P. Mark Achtemeier (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
3. LeRoy Aden (Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia)
4. Diogenes Allen (Princeton Theological Seminary)
5. Joseph Alulis (North Park University)
6. Charles L. Bartow (Princeton Theological Seminary)
7. Donald G. Bloesch (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
8. Carl Braaten (Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology)
9. Manfred Brauch (Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary)
10. William P. Brown (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
11. Don S. Browning (University of Chicago)
12. Frederick S. Carney (Southern Methodist University)
13. Ellen T. Charry (Princeton Theological Seminary)
14. Karl Paul Donfried (Smith College)
15. Richard Drummond (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
16. Jean Bethke Elshtain (University of Chicago)
17. Edward E. Ericson, Jr. (Calvin College)
18. Gabriel Fackre (Andover Newton Theological School)
19. Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary)
20. Joel B. Green (Asbury Theological Seminary)
21. Robert H. Gundry (Westmont College)
22. Scott J. Hafemann (Wheaton College)
23. Roy A. Harrisville (Luther Theological Seminary)
24. Stanley M. Hauerwas (Duke University)
25. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Wheaton College)
26. S. Mark Heim (Andover Newton Theological School)
27. Frank Witt Hughes (Codrington College)
28. Robert Imbelli (Boston College)
29. Robert Jenson (Center for Theological Inquiry)
30. Robert Jewett (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary)
31. Jack Dean Kingsbury (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
32. Paul Koptak (North Park Theological Seminary)
33. John S. Lawrence (Morningside College)
34. Walter Liefeld (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
35. Troy Martin (Saint Xavier University)
36. James L. Mays (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
37. S. Dean McBride (Union Theological Seminary in Virginia)
38. Sheila E. McGinn (John Carroll University)
39. John R. McRay (Wheaton College)
40. Robert Meye (Fuller Theological Seminary)
41. David Moessner (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
42. Grant Osborne (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
43. Carroll D. Osburn (Abilene Christian University)
44. William A. Pannell (Fuller Theological Seminary)
45. Jon Paulien (Andrews University)
46. John Piper (Bethlehem Baptist Church)
47. Stephen Pope (Boston College)
48. J. E. Powers (Hope College
49. Mark Reasoner (Bethel College),
50. John Reumann (Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia)
51. David Rhoads (Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago)
52. W. Larry Richards (Andrews University)
53. Daniel E. Ritchie (Bethel College)
54. Joel Samuels (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
55. David Scholer (Fuller Theological Seminary)
56. Keith Norman Schoville (University of Wisconsin)
57. J. Julius Scott (Wheaton College)
58. Mark Seifrid (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
59. Christopher R. Seitz (St. Andrews University)
60. Klyne Snodgrass (North Park Theological Seminary)
61. Max Stackhouse (Princeton Theological Seminary)
62. W. Richard Stegner (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary)
63. Jeanne Stevenson-Moessner (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary)
64. R. Franklin Terry (Morningside College)
65. David Tiede (Luther Theological Seminary)
66. Reinder Van Til (Eerdmans Publishing Company)
67. Warren Wade (North Park University)
68. J. Ross Wagner (Princeton Theological Seminary)
69. David H. Wallace (American Baptist Seminary of the West)
70. Timothy P. Weber (Northern Baptist Theological Seminary)
71. Merold Westphal (Fordham University)
72. Jonathan R. Wilson (Westmont College)
73. Edward and Anne Wimberly (Interdenominational Theological Center)
74. Harry Yeide (George Washington University)
Brantley Gasaway, an American religious historian at Bucknell University and author of the excellent Progressive Evangelicals and the Pursuit of Social Justice, tweeted this letter today in response to my Washington Post piece on the court evangelicals. It comes from the archives of the National Association of Evangelicals at Wheaton College.
The letter is written from James Dobson of Focus on the Family to Robert “Bob” Dugan Jr., the director of the NAE’s Office of Public Affairs. Dobson is worried that if President Bill Clinton was invited to this NAE event it would “divide the evangelical community.”
Yes, times have changed.
Here is a transcription:
Feb[ruary 26, 94
Bob, My Friend
I think NAE has made a serious costly mistake by inviting the President to your annual event. He wants to divide the evangelical community. NAE just helped him do it. I’m disappointed! Jim.
Does anyone know if Clinton came to this “annual event?”
James Dobson made a strong case for the moral character of the President of the United States during the Clinton impeachment crisis in 1998. You can read about it here.
So did Wayne Grudem. You can read about it here.
It has now been well-chronicled that Dobson and Grudem have come out in support of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy.
So does moral character still matter?
Writing at The Atlantic, Jonathan Merritt calls attention to what seems to be the hypocrisy of these “Trump-Loving evangelicals.” He demands that “Trump-loving evangelicals should either apologize to Bill Clinton or admit, after all these years, that they too, have a character issue.”
“Character counts.” That was evangelicals’ rallying cry in their all-out assault against Bill Clinton beginning in 1993. In response to what they perceived as widespread moral decline, some religious groups had become aligned with the Republican Party during the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. To them, the allegedly draft-dodging, pot-smoking, honesty-challenged womanizer symbolized everything that was wrong with America.
More than two decades after Clinton’s first inauguration, many evangelical leaders of that era have endorsed the draft-dodging, foul-mouthed, honesty-challenged womanizer named Donald Trump for president. Only a handful refuse to follow suit, including Albert Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. During the Clinton years, he regularly argued in mainstream media outlets that the Arkansan was morally unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
“If I were to support, much less endorse, Donald Trump for president,” Mohler says, “I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.”
At least Mohler is consistent, which is more than can be said for some of his peers in leadership. While prominent evangelicals tied Bill Clinton to the public whipping post for nearly a decade to make him pay penance for his character defects, they now celebrate a reality-television star who is at least as flawed. As Mohler said, if these Christian leaders want to endorse Trump, they should apologize to Bill Clinton…
…Evangelicals during the ’90s were not merely concerned with Clinton’s private behavior; they were worried about its effect on a society they felt had already abandoned traditional values. In September 1998, James Dobson of Focus on the Family sent a letter to 2.4 million conservative Christians claiming Clinton should be impeached because his behavior was setting a bad example for our children about “respecting women.” Dobson’s apparent concern for women back then feels like a partisan political move now that he’s given Trump an enthusiastic endorsement.
While Clinton, at least, hid his indiscretions, Trump has paraded his affairs down Broadway for decades. In The Art of the Deal, Trump actually bragged about bedding multiple married women. He’s slept with so many women that he called his ability to avoid STDs “my personal Vietnam.” He’s objectified or insulted the women he hasn’t married, divorced, or slept with, labeling those he finds unattractive with terms like “fat pig,” “dog” or “slob.” In numerous interviews with Howard Stern, he talked in graphic detail about his sexual exploits and discussed which female celebrities are worth a “bang.” How exactly do evangelicals reconcile this behavior with claims that they value respect for women?
Read the entire piece here.
OK, now some thoughts for my evangelical and Christian readers:
There have been a lot of arguments in the evangelical community about whether one should or should not support Trump. As I argued yesterday, the pro-Trump argument centers on his promise to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. But I hear very little conversation within evangelical circles about how support for Donald Trump impacts Christian witness in the United States and beyond. No one is talking about how a Trump-loving evangelical bears testimony to his or her faith with unbelievers. (Last time I checked evangelism was a fundamental tenet of evangelical belief).
Whether we like it or not, or whether it is fair or not, we live in an age when religious conviction and politics are closely linked in the minds of many Americans. If you are an evangelical who supports Trump you are going to have a lot of explaining to do when unbelieving friends and acquaintances ask you how you claim the name of Jesus Christ and still affiliate with the immoral candidate that Merritt describes above. Somehow I don’t think “well, Hillary is a lot worse” or “we need to win the Supreme Court” is going to be an adequate answer.
I am guessing a lot of my readers have never heard of Wayne Grudem. He is an evangelical theologian and the author of a very popular one-volume treatment of evangelical systematic theology. He is also well-known within evangelical circles for defending a “complementarian” view of gender roles in the church and society.
Grudem is the quintessential evangelical insider. He speaks and writes for evangelical churches and rarely ventures out of this subculture to engage a broader American public. This is why most people outside of evangelicalism have never heard of him.
When I was a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1989-1992) I took a theology course with Grudem. I don’t remember much about it other than the fact that Grudem spent a lot of time talking about his work on the Biblical idea of prophecy. (I also remember having to read all of Calvin’s Institutes!). He would eventually argue that today’s Christians needed to reclaim the gift of prophecy. If I remember correctly, he argued that the Holy Spirit could bring divine revelation to a believer’s mind.
During my time at Trinity I attended a major conference called “Evangelical Affirmations.” The purpose of the conference was to draw clearly defined theological boundaries around the word “evangelical.” Leading evangelical theologians and pastors (mostly conservative evangelicals who upheld the doctrine of biblical inerrancy) gathered on the Trinity campus in Deerfield, Illinois to try to figure out who was “in” and who was “out.”
One of the most heated debates focused on whether one could truly be called an “evangelical” if he or she did not believe that hell was a literal place–a place of fire and brimstone where unbelievers would spend eternity suffering for rejecting the Christian gospel. I am guessing that most of the delegates to the Evangelical Affirmations conference would have affirmed the existence of such a place of eternal torment, but whether its literal existence should serve as a defining marker of evangelical faith was complicated by the beliefs of one man: John Stott.
Next to Billy Graham, John Stott is probably the most important and well-respected evangelical of the post-war era. Even New York Times columnist David Brooks has sung his praises as a thoughtful, wise, humble, and respectable voice of modern evangelicalism.
Stott did not believe in a literal hell.
When the majority of delegates said that a true “evangelical” must believe in a literal hell, someone stood up (I can’t remember who it was) and begged, quite passionately I might add, that the group not define evangelicalism so narrowly that someone as influential as Stott would be excluded. (Stott was not present at the meeting). Debate raged
Midway through this heated discussion about hell and John Stott, Wayne Grudem stood up. I remember it vividly. Grudem recognized Stott’s evangelical faith and his contribution to global evangelicalism, but he also articulated his strong conviction that the evangelical movement must, Stott or no Stott, affirm a belief in a literal hell.
I remember Grudem speaking with a great deal of certainty that day. Frankly, I could not interpret his words apart from what he was teaching in his class about the so-called gift of prophecy.
I thought about this moment, and Grudem’s views on prophecy, when I read his recent article endorsing Donald Trump for President of the United States. You can read it here. I am not going to use this post to argue with his political views. Later this week I will be a guest on a Christianity Today podcast that, from what I understand, will be using Grudem’s piece as a framing device for a larger discussion on evangelicals and the 2016 election. I will probably offer some history-informed commentary there. I also appreciate the responses to Grudem’s piece written by Jonathan Merritt, Thomas Kidd, Warren Throckmorton, David French, Beth Allison Barr, Scot McKnight, Randal Rauser, David Moore, and John Mark Reynolds. Check them out.
In his argument in favor of Trump, Grudem wrote:
He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.
It seems like Grudem wants to ignore these character issues when it comes to Trump’s candidacy. But back in 1998 he thought that the character of the POTUS was important. Here is a taste of a statement that evangelical leaders signed in response to the moral indiscretions of President Bill Clinton:
We are aware that certain moral qualities are central to the survival of our political system, among which are truthfulness, integrity, respect for the law, respect for the dignity of others, adherence to the constitutional process, and a willingness to avoid the abuse of power. We reject the premise that violations of these ethical standards should be excused so long as a leader remains loyal to a particular political agenda and the nation is blessed by a strong economy. Elected leaders are accountable to the Constitution and to the people who elected them. By his own admission the President has departed from ethical standards by abusing his presidential office, by his ill use of women, and by his knowing manipulation of truth for indefensible ends. We are particularly troubled about the debasing of the language of public discourse with the aim of avoiding responsibility for one’s actions.
We are concerned about the impact of this crisis on our children and on our students. Some of them feel betrayed by a President in whom they set their hopes while others are troubled by his misuse of others, by which many in the administration, the political system, and the media were implicated in patterns of deceit and abuse. Neither our students nor we demand perfection. Many of us believe that extreme dangers sometimes require a political leader to engage in morally problematic actions. But we maintain that in general there is a reasonable threshold of behavior beneath which our public leaders should not fall, because the moral character of a people is more important than the tenure of a particular politician or the protection of a particular political agenda. Political and religious history indicate that violations and misunderstandings of such moral issues may have grave consequences. The widespread desire to “get this behind us” does not take seriously enough the nature of transgressions and their social effects.
(Thanks to Katie Manzullo-Thomas and Devin Manzullo-Thomas for digging up this statement when I was writing in June about James Dobson’s support of Trump).
I am not sure which Wayne Grudem to believe–the 1998 anti-Clinton version or the 2016 pro-Trump version. Perhaps Grudem has changed his mind about presidential character.
Whatever one thinks about Grudem’s views of prophecy, it is worth noting that he does think that prophets are human and sometimes may be wrong. On page 69 of his book The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today he writes: “The prophet could err, could misinterpret, and could be questioned or challenged at any point.”
In my post last night, I criticized Dobson, a long-time evangelical culture-warrior and the man who has done more than anyone else to shape the evangelical understanding of “family values,” for throwing his support behind a presidential candidate who, by all accounts, exemplifies very few signs of Christian character.
Dobson’s embrace of Trump is particularly disturbing in light of what he said about Christian character and the presidency in the 1990s. Earlier this week, two friends and colleagues dug-up a letter Dobson wrote to his constituency in the wake of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky scandal.
You can read the long letter here.
I have posted the entire letter below and have highlighted some of the things Dobson has written that could also be applied to Donald Trump’s candidacy. This is VERY revealing. Dobson seems to have forgotten his own lessons about the moral character of the presidency. (Sorry that this is such a long post, but I wanted to print the entire letter just in case it disappears from the web at some point).
This is a great primary source. I encourage you to interpret it with your students and friends.
Greetings to you all. Shirley and I have been visiting the historic city of Boston for the past few weeks while working on a new book called Coming Home. I’ll tell you more about that at Christmastime. We have loved being together and are particularly grateful to God for His healing touch after my illness. Toward the end of our trip, however, we were shocked and dismayed by the admission of the President’s affair with “that woman — Miss Lewinsky” — which brought humiliation on himself, his family and our nation. Millions of words have been written and spoken about that sordid story, which I have chosen not to address during these past seven months. But now I want to express some passionate views that are on my heart.
As with many Christians around the country, Shirley and I have been in prayer for our leaders in government who must deal with the fallout from this scandal. They will need great wisdom and discernment in the days ahead. Our most serious concern, however, is not with those in Washington; it is with the American people. What has alarmed me throughout this episode has been the willingness of my fellow citizens to rationalize the President’s behavior even after they suspected, and later knew, that he was lying. Because the economy is strong, millions of people have said infidelity in the Oval Office is just a private affair–something between himself and Hillary. We heard it time and again during those months: “As long as Mr. Clinton is doing a good job, it’s nobody’s business what he does with his personal life.”
That disregard for morality is profoundly disturbing to me. Although sexual affairs have occurred often in high places, the public has never approved of such misconduct. But today, the rules by which behavior is governed appear to have been rewritten specifically for Mr. Clinton. We now know that this 50-year-old man had sexual relations repeatedly and brazenly in the White House, with a woman 27 years his junior. Then he spoke on national television while shaking his finger at the camera, and denied ever having a sexual relationship with Miss Lewinsky. He was the most powerful man in the world and she was a starry-eyed intern. That situation would not have been tolerated in any other setting — ever. And yet the apologists for the President have said endlessly, “It’s just about sex,” as though cheating on your wife was of no particular significance. But the majority of the American people replied, “I support the President.”
Let me ask, in what other context such behavior would have been acceptable? When a professor is known to have had consensual sex with a student, the university dismisses him or her forthwith. Academic institutions recognize their responsibility to protect the interests of younger and more vulnerable individuals. When a corporate executive is similarly accused, especially if numerous women claim to have been “groped” or abused in the manner of Kathleen Willey or Paula Jones, that man is fired. Period! If a middle-aged physician had sex with a younger patient in his office, he would probably lose his medical license. If a psychiatrist, psychologist or counselor entered into a sexual relationship with a patient of any age, he would be charged with malpractice. It is stated in the code of ethics for these professions.
How about the stories reported in the military this past year? Lt. Kelly Flinn was charged with having sexual relations with a subordinate and was forced to resign to avoid a court-martial. Sgt. Major Gene McKinney, the U.S. Army’s highest ranking enlisted man, went through a five week trial after being charged with sexual misconduct. Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston was denied an assignment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of an affair occurring 14 years ago. 3 Given these and other examples, how can people rationalize the dalliances of the Commander in Chief when those to whom they are accountable are held to a higher standard? Yes, the rules have changed for the President.
How can we forget the excruciating confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Senate?. Even if Anita Hill’s accusations had been accurate, the worst possible interpretation of Thomas’ behavior was that he “talked dirty” to her. That probably never happened, but even if it did, there was no sex. There were no lies or coverup. No one was involved who was half his age. And yet, many of the same feminists and liberal politicians who viciously sought to destroy Justice Thomas have rallied to support the President. Indeed, Anita Hill showed up on television a few days ago to defend Bill Clinton and to attack the independent counsel, Ken Starr. Where, may I ask, have other feminist leaders been during this scandal, including Eleanor Smeal, Patricia Ireland, Gloria Steinem and Kate Michelman? Obviously, they are motivated not by the welfare of women but by raw political power.
How did our beloved nation find itself in this sorry mess? I believe it began not with the Lewinsky affair, but many years earlier. There was plenty of evidence during the first Presidential election that Bill Clinton had a moral problem. His affair with Gennifer Flowers, which he now admits to having lied about, was rationalized by the American people. He lied about dodging the draft, and then concocted an incredulous explanation that changed his story. He visited the Soviet Union and other hostile countries during the Vietnam War, claiming that he was only an “observer.” Numerous sources reported that he organized and participated in anti-war rallies in the United States, Great Britain, and Norway. Clinton evaded questions about whether he had used marijuana, and then finally offered his now-infamous “I didn’t inhale” response. There were other indications that Bill Clinton was untruthful and immoral. Why, then, did the American people ignore so many red flags? Because, and I want to give the greatest emphasis to this point, the mainstream media became enamored with Bill Clinton in 1992 and sought to convince the American people that “character doesn’t matter.”
Let me share just a few of the hundreds of statements, in print and in the media, that exist on the record. You’ll quickly recognize this effort by the press to undermine the moral values that we called “character.” Hold on to your hat.
“… we can remember that we are electing not clergy but political leaders — who need to be principled and devious, compassionate and brutal, visionary and, sometimes, utterly egotistical. If we try to do much better, we will end up doing worse.” — Suzanne Garment, San Diego Union-Tribune.1992
[Speaking on behalf of New York University media scholar Jay Rosen], “there is an important distinction between public and private character.What candidates do in private is largely irrelevant, says Rosen. What matters is their public conduct.” — Jeremy Iggers in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. 1992
“He [Clinton] will shave, wheedle, compromise and cajole until he finds — or creates — common ground. He is notorious for his ability to impress strangers and disarm opponents. He is notorious for leading people to believe that he agrees with them entirely…without ever committing himself to their position. This is a gift given only to the best politicians. It is how difficult things get done.” — Joe Klein, Newsweek magazine. 1994
“Whether character is a factor or not is relevant only as it relates to what the people want in terms of a President. They’re looking for someone with the character to get the economy back on track and answer the more serious questions facing this country.” — Max Parker, a Clinton spokeswoman during the 1992 Presidential campaign.
“Voters re-elected Clinton despite widespread doubts about his character. In CNN’s election day exit poll, most voters continued to say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. They’ve re-elected him because of his job performance — and crossed their fingers that character would not prove to be a major problem.” — Bill Schneider, CNN. 1996
“He has vacillated on issues large and small, and at times he has conducted himself like a man with something to hide. Nevertheless, we think he is still a better choice …”
“… Clinton was able to defuse the ‘character’ issue by focusing on voters’ own wants and needs. They put their own interests above that issue, and thus relegated all the stories about Clinton’s character to the back burner, or to the trash can. …it means that women and families have decided that it’s more important to have their own issues addressed rather than worry about the character issue.” — Robert A. Jordan of The Boston Globe. 1996.
Clinton is not the only politician in either party who lacks character, certainly, but he is the only one in American history, to my knowledge, who has been specifically applauded for his deceit. Let me share one of the most graphic illustrations of that support. Please read carefully the following statement by noted syndicated columnist, Richard Cohen, after Clinton’s first term.
“… he [Clinton] has been accused of adultery, sexual harassment, and ducking the draft — allegations that send some people into a frenzy of Clinton-hating. The President’s ultimate sin, it seems to some people, is that he appears to have broken the rules — and gotten away with it. That is unforgivable. But to the rest of us, the character issue just hasn’t taken. If we have learned anything over the last four years, it is that strictly personal behavior — in other words, sex — might be interesting, might be titillating, and might be even downright riveting…. One can argue that in both his triumphs and his failures there is a connection between the private and public Bill Clinton. But once the public man is known, the private one just doesn’t seem to matter anymore…. In his own way, Clinton taught us all a lesson about personal character that we should all remember the next time around: It’s sometimes more interesting than important.” — Richard Cohen of The Washington Post. 1996
I wonder what words of wisdom Cohen has to offer about the President now. We don’t have to guess about his colleague at The Washington Post, Michael Kelly. He said a few weeks ago: “[Clinton] will never stop lying. To borrow a hyperbolic description of another of the century’s historic prevaricators, every word he utters is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ He will lie until the last dog dies.”
It is obvious that the media now realizes they misled the American people. Most of the largest and most influential newspapers in the country are calling for Clinton’s resignation. Maureen Dowd, writing in The New York Times, said, “Mr. Clinton has killed something worthy and important in public life. All this carnage, and for what? To cover up some seamy sexcapades? His game has grown exhausting.”
Noemie Emery spoke of Bill Clinton “trailing his fragrant scandals behind him.” Let’s look at the record in the past five years. The American people have been subjected to a barrage of lies and half-truths — from Whitewater, to Filegate, to Travelgate, to Paula Jones, to Kathleen Willey, to the mysterious disappearance of subpoenaed documents, and ultimately, to alleged campaign finance illegalities that may yet bring down the President. If you followed the stories during the past six years, you’ll recognize the names of numerous people associated with convictions or allegations of wrongdoing, including David Hale, David Watkins, Mike Espy, Joycelyn Elders, Henry Cisneros, Webster Hubbell, Ron Brown, Jim Guy Tucker, Hazel O’Leary, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Craig Livingstone, Dick Morris, John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, Al Gore (regarding the Buddhist monks and the illegal telephone calls), and finally, Hillary Clinton, who has been subpoenaed by the independent counsel and given sworn testimony on five separate occasions. 21 There’s a story behind each of these names that are linked to the President. All of this from the man who promised “the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic.” 22
As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James the question is posed, “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.
Speaking again of the First Lady, we’re being asked to believe that she knew nothing about the President’s escapade. I don’t want to be insensitive during her very difficult trial, but there is something strange about that explanation. After all, Hillary has been over this road before with her husband. Remember her appearance on 60 Minutes in 1992 when candidate Clinton admitted he had “caus[ed] pain in [my] marriage” regarding the affair with Gennifer Flowers? Hillary has dealt with infidelity at least once. Wouldn’t that have unsettled Mrs. Clinton, especially when she knew about the charges made by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and possibly others. Are we to believe that this brilliant woman, a highly respected lawyer, neither saw nor heard anything leading her to conclude that her husband was lying? Did their private conversations reveal anything suspicious to her? How could she not have known about Monica these past seven months when the entire world was digging for information? It doesn’t sound believable to me.
This, then, is the key question. If Hillary did know about the affair, does that mean she lied too? And if so, was it not inexcusable for her to appear on the Today Show in January to blame the “right-wing conspiracy” for trouble that she knew was of her husband’s own making?
One thing is certain: Mr. Clinton has betrayed some of his closest friends, many of them being women who were pressed into his defense. Included among them were Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, Betty Currie, Ann Lewis, Dee Dee Myers, Mandy Grunwald, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, among others. Columnist Thomas Sowell wrote, “What could be more selfish or more gutless than a man hiding behind a woman, especially a woman young enough to be his daughter.” Noted in the President’s weak and defensive explanation on August 17 was no mention of Monica Lewinsky and the other cast of characters. The President owes all his defenders an apology.
I think it is also appropriate that the President’s spinmeister, James Carville, apologize to the independent counsel, Ken Starr, for saying “what the man [Starr] ought to do is close up his little obsessive sex shop and go back to whatever he’s doing. And I’m saying this: that this little pygmy of a public man, Ken Starr, this is all he’s got. This is his last dying gasp to save his reputation for history, and it’s not going to work.” Carville also stated that Starr was “about as independent as a turkey is bright,” 29 “a right-wing partisan hack,” 30 and accused him of “scuzzy, slimy” tactics.
Can you imagine the President of the United States being represented by such an undignified character? Mr. Starr is a courageous public servant. He has taken the heat to get at the truth, and we haven’t seen all the facts to date. This Christian man, who was asked by the Attorney General to do this thankless job, will be vindicated in the end, and indeed, he has already!
Well, that brings me back to the issue with which we began. The American people have now heard the President’s dramatic confession of adultery. There is no longer any reason to speculate, and yet, the media reports that the majority continues to believe “it doesn’t matter.” At one point during the shocking revelations last month, Clinton’s public approval rating approached 70 percent! I just don’t understand it. Why aren’t parents more concerned about what their children are hearing about the President’s behavior? Are moms and dads not embarrassed by what is occurring? At any given time, 40 percent of the nation’s children list the President of the United States as the person they most admire. What are they learning from Mr. Clinton? What have we taught our boys about respecting women? What have our little girls learned about men? How can we estimate the impact of this scandal on future generations? How in the world can 7 out of 10 Americans continue to say that nothing matters except a robust economy?
I am left to conclude from these opinions that our greatest problem is not in the Oval Office. It is with the people of this land! We have lost our ability to discern the difference between right and wrong. Biblical moral principles have guided us since the Pilgrims came to these shores. In his farewell address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington said:
“Of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion … reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Clearly, this nation has been blessed because it was based on a commitment to biblical morality. But that is changing. Eleven years ago, Gary Hart was forced to withdraw from the Presidential race after a brief tryst, and yet the majority today seems to find nothing wrong with behavior that is too disgusting to be reported on the evening news.
We are facing a profound moral crisis — not only because one man has disgraced us — but because our people no longer recognize the nature of evil. And when a nation reaches that state of depravity — judgment is a certainty.
As for the future of Bill Clinton, who knows where his presidency is headed. Because I’m writing this on September 1, he may or may not still be president by the time you read this. I see the President as a prize fighter who’s been staggered by a succession of blows, but he’s still standing. One more solid punch and he could go down. Only time will tell. Regardless of his personal future, I hope that Mr. Clinton will, as William Mattox suggested, “choose to follow in the path of Watergate figure Chuck Colson, a man who came clean with the truth, owned up to his misdeeds and found, at the height of his public humiliation, a new life and a new purpose.” As with all of us sinners, Jesus Christ is the atonement.
Pray with us for our country, won’t you? Nothing short of a spiritual renewal will save us.
James C. Dobson, Ph.D
A Footnote: There are a few very important quotes that help illuminate this present scandal. In 1974 when Bill Clinton was a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, and Richard Nixon was fighting for his political life after Watergate, he was very outspoken in calling for impeachment. Here are three quotes that take on new significance in the light of Mr. Clinton’s current troubles:
“There’s nothing left to say. There’s not any point now in his putting the country through an impeachment since he isn’t making any pretense of innocence now.” 37 (1974)
“I think it’s plain that the President should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding.” 38 (1974)
“I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if [Nixon would] go on and resign….[there is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense.” 39
Let’s fast forward to 1992 when Clinton was campaigning against George Bush. Here are two quotes that appear relevant today:
“Every time Bush talks about trust, it makes chills run up and down my spine. The very idea that the word ‘trust’ could come out of Mr. Bush’s mouth after what he’s done to this country and the way he’s trampled on the truth is a travesty of the American political system.” 40
“There’s just no such thing as truth when it comes to him (Bush). He just says whatever sounds good and worries about it after the election.” 41
Let me also remind you of a comment made by Mrs. Clinton during that interview on The Today Show on January 27, 1998. When asked, “If an American president had an adulterous relationship in the White House and lied to cover it up, should the American people ask for his resignation?” she said, “They [the American people] certainly should be concerned about it… I think that if all that were proven true, I think that would be a very serious offense.” 42 That may be the most accurate statement of the interview.
Finally, in 1995, President Bill Clinton made a speech at the University of Connecticut, during which he said:
“The road to tyranny, we must never forget, is the destruction of the truth.” 43
There you have it. Perhaps I will post this again and replace “Clinton” with “Trump.” After reading Dobson’s remarks here it leads me to believe that it really is all about politics.
Writing at The Front Porch Republic, Andrew Bacevich argues that politics during the last three presidential terms have been defined by a “neoliberal consensus.” This consensus, Bacevich argues, is not unlike the consensus that Richard Hofstadter wrote about back in 1948. Here is a taste of his piece:
|Bill Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock|
Honolulu, New York, and Chicago are all in the mix. A foundation has been formed to “manage the library process” and an architect may have already been chosen. Witold Rybczynski, a professor of urbanism at Penn, discusses the history of presidential libraries in the New York Times and suggests that Obama should “go small” by simply donating his papers to the National Archives. Here is a taste:
But where the library is situated or who designs it is less important than whether Mr. Obama will follow the grandiose example of his predecessors, or chart a new course
A presidential library is an archive, museum and shrine, rolled into one. The archive preserves presidential papers (which are the property of the government) for the benefit of future scholars. The museum contains educational exhibits. The shrine is represented by displays of personal mementos: the Bible on which Harry S. Truman took his oath of office, the extra-long sofa from Lyndon B. Johnson’s Senate office, Gerald R. Ford’s college football trophies. A centerpiece of the Kennedy Library, on Boston Harbor, is his sailboat, the Victura. The Eisenhower and Nixon libraries include the presidents’ boyhood homes. The sprawling Reagan Library houses the largest of all presidential artifacts: Air Force One.
Here is some of what he had to say yesterday.
I’m here today for Ohio, and for President Obama, and because for 30 years I’ve been writing about the distance between the American dream and American reality. I’ve been gauging that distance through a big part of my life. I’ve seen it from inside and oustide: as a blue-collar kid from a working-class home in New Jersey — where my parents struggled, not always successfully, to make ends meet — to the Ninth Ward in New Orleans after Katrina, to meeting folks from food pantries all around the United States, working daily to help our struggling citizens through the hard times we’ve been suffering through.
Our vote — our vote is the one principal way we get to determine that distance in that equation. Voting matters. Elections matter. Think of the events of the last 12 years and try to convince yourself they don’t. We get an individual hand in shaping the kind of America we want our kids to grow up in.
I’m a dad, I’ve got three kids, I’m 63… and I’ve lived through some galvanizing moments in American history: the Civil Rights struggle, the peace movement, times when you could feel the world shifting under your feet. I remember President Obama’s election night was an evening when you could feel the locked doors of the past finally being blown open to new possibilities.
But then comes a hard, daily struggle to make those possibilities real in a world that is brutally resistant to change. We’ve seen that over the past four years; the forces of our opposition have been tireless.
But I came here today because I’m thankful for universal health care, the lack of which was for so long an embarrassment to our country. I’m thankful for a more regulated Wall Street. I’m thankful GM is still making cars. What else would I write about?! I’d have no job without that!
I’m here today because I’m concerned about women’s rights. I don’t have to tell you about the dangers to Roe v. Wade under our opponent’s policies.
I’m also here today because of the continuing disparity in wealth between our best-off citizens and our everyday citizens. That’s a disparity that I believe our honorable opponents’ policies will only increase and that threatens to divide us into two distinct and foreign nations, until many of us are going to end up like a song I wrote in the 1980s, “Jackson Cage”: “just the scenery in another man’s play.” If we marginalize so many of our citizens, their talents, their energies, their voices will go unfound and unheard. We will lose their contributions to this great land of ours; we will impoverish ourselves and set ourselves on the road to decline. So their opportunities must be protected, and I think President Obama understands this.
And I’m here today because I’ve lived long enough to know that despite those galvanizing moments in history, the future is rarely a tide rushing in. It’s often a slow march, inch by inch, day after long day, and I believe we are in the midst of those long days right now. And I’m here because I believe President Obama feels those days in his bone, for all 100 percent of us. I believe he’s got the strength, the commitment, and the vision to live these days with us, and to carry the standard forward toward a country where, as I’ve written, “nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.”