More Court Evangelicals

Trump evangelical

Check out Jon Ward’s piece at Yahoo News: “Laying on hands: When Trump needs support, he calls on pastors, and they call on him.”

A taste:

But there are dissenters among evangelicals, even conservative ones.

“It is hard to see these meetings apart from a lust for power,” said John Fea, history department chairman at Messiah College, a Christian college in Pennsylvania. He has written extensively about the roots of American Christianity and the debate over whether America is a “Christian nation,” and he has referredto religious conservatives around Trump as “court evangelicals.”

“They are like the religious members of the King’s Court during the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance who sought power and worldly approval by flattering the king rather than speaking truth to power,” Fea said in an email.

Pete Wehner, a former White House adviser to George W. Bush who is now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, also homed in on the blind allegiance many religious conservatives have given to Trump.

“If evangelicals were not courtiers of Trump, they would call him out, at least now and then, on his malicious comments and actions, on his pathological lies, on his dehumanizing tactics, and on his indifference to objective truth,” Wehner said. “But many prominent evangelical leaders simply refuse to do so.”

Read the entire piece here.

By the way, if all goes as planned my Trump book will have a chapter titled “The Court Evangelicals.”

Gerson: “For many years, leaders of the religious right exactly conformed Christian social teaching to the contours of Fox News…”

Bannon Voters Valye

Michael Gerson continues to bring the fire.  He starts his October 16, 2017 Washington Post column with this line: “At the Family Research Council’s recent Values Voter Summit, the religious right effectively declared its conversion to Trumpism.”

He continues:

The president was received as a hero. Stephen K. Bannon and Sebastian Gorka — both fired from the White House, in part, for their extremism — set the tone and agenda. “There is a time and season for everything,” said Bannon. “And right now, it’s a season for war against a GOP establishment.”

A time to live and a time to die. A time to plant and a time to uproot. A time to mourn and a time to embrace angry ethnonationalism and racial demagoguery. Yes, a time to mourn.

There is no group in the United States less attached to its own ideals or more eager for its own exploitation than religious conservatives. Forget Augustine and Aquinas, Wilberforce and Shaftesbury. For many years, leaders of the religious right exactly conformed Christian social teaching to the contours of Fox News evening programming. Now, according to Bannon, “economic nationalism” is the “centerpiece of value voters.” I had thought the centerpiece was a vision of human dignity rooted in faith. But never mind. Evidently the Christian approach to social justice is miraculously identical to 1930s Republican protectionism, isolationism and nativism.

Do religious right leaders have any clue how foolish they appear? Rather than confidently and persistently representing a set of distinctive beliefs, they pant and beg to be a part of someone else’s movement. In this case, it is a movement that takes advantage of racial and ethnic divisions and dehumanizes Muslims, migrants and refugees. A movement that has cultivated ties to alt-right leaders and flirted with white identity politics. A movement that will eventually soil and discredit all who are associated with it.

Read the entire column here.

I took the weekend off, so I did not get a chance to see much of the display of court evangelicalism known as the “Voters Value Summit,” but I hope to get caught up soon.

Rod Dreher Calls Out the Court Evangelicals

Puerto

In a post criticizing Donald Trump’s handling of Puerto Rico, American Conservative blogger Rod Dreher (of Benedict Option fame) wonders why the court evangelicals have been so quiet.

Here is a taste:

Where are Donald Trump’s court Evangelicals on this? If you cannot stand up to your friend the US president when he threatens to stop sending humanitarian aid to American citizens who are hungry, thirsty, sick, and without shelter, then God help you when you come before the King of Kings.

Read the entire post here.

#Evangelicals

Last night I was browsing around on Twitter and decided to see how tweeters were using the hashtag #evangelicals these days.  What I found was not pretty.

Here were the first several tweets I read:

Read many more here.

I think evangelicals can respond to these tweets in several ways:

  1.  They could take a culture war approach and conclude that all of these tweeters simply hate evangelicals.  I am sure many of these tweeters do dislike evangelicals and have always disliked them.  The evangelicals who interpret these tweets in this way will be tempted to fight back against the haters.  This would be a response fitting with the “Christian” approach to politics that has dominated the GOP for two generations.
  2. They could react in sadness.  As the Bible teaches us, there will always be people who will persecute Christians or say “all manner of evil against” Christians, but I hope evangelicals might be sad that they are now seen by many non-Christians (and perhaps some non-evangelical Christians) in this way.   Some evangelicals might rejoice in the way they are treated on Twitter.  After all, didn’t Jesus say “blessed are the persecuted?” In Corinthians 1:18, Paul said that the message of the cross is foolishness to “those who are perishing.”  Perhaps that is a legitimate Christian response to these tweets.  Or maybe these tweets are simply a response to evangelicals acting like fools in a way that has nothing to do with the “message of the cross.”
  3. Some might decide that they can no longer embrace the evangelical label because it is has become too associated with the Christian Right or Donald Trump or the court evangelicals.  They will look for another term.
  4. Some may want to stay with the label and try to redeem it by living in such a way that conforms to the teachings of our faith.

Whatever the case, the term “evangelical” is taking a beating right now.

Two Evangelicals Talking Trump

Julie Roys of Moody Radio and Vince Bacote of Wheaton College discuss Trump with Chicago-area evangelical television host Jerry Rose.  I am very disappointed with Vince.  He is an old friend of mine (groomsman in my weeding) but will not use my “court evangelical” term when talking about evangelicals like Jeffress and Falwell getting too close to power.  🙂

Having said that, Bacote is in rare form here:

 

 

Newsweek’s Cover Story on Trump and the Evangelicals

Trump_Prayer_090117_HD1080_img_408081

Nina Burleigh‘s piece, “Does God Believe in Trump?” is worth reading.  There is not much new here, but Burleigh brings together several threads from the short history of Trump-inspired court evangelicalism.  Unlike other journalists, Burleigh places a lot of emphasis on a 2011 meeting between Trump and several evangelical leaders gathered together by court evangelical Paula White.  She also examines the faceba.se study that shows Trump is the most stressed when he is talking about God and the least stressed when he is talking about The New York Times.

Here is a taste of Burleigh’s cover story:

Now comes the most presumptuous—perhaps even heretical—question a journalist could pose: What does God think of Trump, who, according to The Washington Post, has already told over 1,000 lies since he moved into the Oval Office and is on a trajectory to hit 2,000 by the end of the year?

The same digital voice analysis that measured Trump’s comfort level when talking about God and the allegedly godless New York Times shows that when the president tells an obvious lie (a statement PolitiFact has determined is false) he is more relaxed than he is at most other times during his speeches and interviews.

That would seem to be a vexing problem for the faithful, since the Bible repeatedly associates lying with the devil. To cite just one of many examples in Scripture, John 8:44 (NIV) refers to Satan thusly: “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Now recall that millions of white conservative fundamentalists who take the Bible literally are awaiting the fulfillment of its prophesy about the apocalypse—the end of days—which will feature the rise of an evil force that will briefly rule the world. He goes by many names, among them the Prince of Lies.

Read the entire piece here.

Once Again, the Court Evangelical Silence is Deafening

PuertoWhere were the court evangelicals this weekend? Why aren’t they responding to THIS.  Donald Trump disparaged the mayor and the people of Puerto Rico and the court evangelicals have suddenly forgotten how to speak and tweet.  We, of course, have seen this many times before.  This is what court evangelicals do.  Or perhaps this is another one of those times where they play the role of Trump-whisperer by going to the Oval Office and telling Trump that he shouldn’t say such things and then announce to the American people how much influence they have over the POTUS.

I can think of several reasons why the court evangelicals have been silent.

  1. They believe what Trump tweeted.  In other words, they believe that the people of Puerto Rico are lazy.  If you really think about it, this interpretation of their silence is not that far-fetched.  Most of the court evangelicals believe in the free market and oppose welfare programs.  Jesus helps those who help themselves.
  2. They believe that Puerto Ricans are not really Americans and, like Trump, they believe in an “America First” mentality.
  3. They will not speak truth to power publicly because they care more about tending to the court and winning POTUS approval than cultivating a prophetic voice.  As much as they say they have an influence on the POTUS, most of their public gatherings with Trump look like this.

Court Evangelical Robert Jeffress on Evangelicals Who Oppose the Alt-Right

jeffress

In case you missed it, a group of evangelicals wrote a letter to Donald Trump asking him to condemn the alt-Right.  They claim that they are “American Religious Leaders,” but anyone who read the names of signers will quickly conclude that most of them are Southern Baptists.  You can read it here.

As far as I can tell, Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference was the only court evangelical who signed the statement.  (How much longer can this guy remain a court evangelical?)  Read the list of signers.  You will not find the signatures of Franklin Graham, Johnnie Moore, Paula White, or Jerry Falwell Jr.

A story at the conservative website Newsmax quotes court evangelical Robert Jeffress’s comments in a Wall Street Journal article on the statement. Here is a taste:

A lot of these people who signed are friends of mine,” Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and a member of Trump’s advisory board, told the Journal. Jeffress was not asked to sign the letter, the Journal reported.

“I also know some of them who absolutely despise the president, and cannot get over the fact that a majority of evangelicals voted for him. It shows how little influence these leaders have in the election and over evangelicals.”

Jeffress seems to believe that a Christian leader’s “influence” is measured by how well his or her political beliefs mesh with “the majority.”  I seem to remember Jesus saying something about a narrow road (Mt 7:14).  Since when is 51% the standard by which Christians develop their political theology?  The theological and biblical contortions Jeffress must make in order to remain a court evangelical never cease to amaze me.

Beinart: Will the GOP Stand-Up to Roy Moore’s Anti-Muslim Prejudice?

Roy Moore,Patricia Jones

The Republican nominee for Jeff Sessions’s vacated Alabama Senate seat is a Christian nationalist who appears to see Muslim-Americans as second-class citizens.  Writing at The Atlantic, Peter Beinart wonders why Moore’s fellow Republicans are not condemning his views.  Here is a taste of his piece:

In his hostility to Islam, and his belief that American Muslims should not be allowed to serve in office, Moore stands firmly in the tradition of Cain, Bachmann, Carson and Trump. In 2006, when Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison swore his oath of office on a Koran, Moore comparedit to taking an “oath on Mein Kampf” in 1943, and said Ellison should not be seated in Congress. This July, he called Islam a “false religion.” In August, he said, “There are communities under Sharia law right now in our country. Up in Illinois. Christian communities.” He later acknowledged that he had no idea if that was true. (It isn’t.)

What’s new isn’t what Moore has said. It’s the way leading Republicans have responded. There has been virtually no criticism at all. When CNN asked Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson how he felt about Moore’s claim that Barack Obama was a Muslim, Johnson responded merely that, “no two people agree 100% of the time.” When asked by the Toronto Star about claims that Moore was anti-Muslim, the Chairman of the Russell County, Alabama, Republican Party replied, “I’m anti-Muslim too.” (He later explained that, “I don’t have any problems with anybody’s religion as long as it’s Christian.”) When Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel declared in an interview on Fox News that, “the voters did the right thing,” Moore’s anti-Muslim comments didn’t even come up. In the age of Donald Trump, most Republican politicians are now too afraid to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry. And increasingly, journalists no longer expect them to.

And where are the court evangelicals?  Why aren’t they speaking out against Moore?  I assume they are too busy petitioning Donald Trump for more religious liberty legislation.

Court Evangelical Robert Jeffress Has a Message for NFL Players

Here is court evangelical Robert Jeffress on NFL players taking a knee:

Let’s get the facts straight.  These NFL players were protesting more than social injustice on Sunday.  They were also protesting the way that President Donald Trump responded to their protests of social injustice.  Their protests on this particular Sunday were more geared toward the latter than the former.  Jeffress seems to have conveniently forgot what Trump said about NFL players who have refused to stand for the playing of the National Anthem:

I would also add that it is impossible to interpret Trump’s remarks here apart from his remarks after Charlottesville:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Evangelicals Have Suddenly Become More Forgiving of the Sins of Elected Officials

First_Baptist_Church_of_Dallas,_TX_IMG_3043

First Baptist Church–Dallas

Hmm….  I wonder what explains this?

Back in 2011, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) asked voters if “an elected official who commits and immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.”

In 2011, evangelical Christians were the least forgiving.

In October 2016, when PRRI asked the same question, evangelical Christians were the most forgiving.  In other words “white evangelicals went from being the least likely to the most likely group to agree that a candidate’s personal immorality has no bearing on his performance in public office.”

PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones calls this “a head-spinning reversal.”

I’m not sure how “head-spinning” this is.  Seems pretty par for the course.  Just ask Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Wayne Grudem.

Read all about it in this piece at The New York Times.

Court Evangelical: “God is not necessarily an open borders guy”

jeffress

Robert Jeffress says that Christians who support DACA (including the signers of this letter and Pope Francis) err on the side of compassion.  The court evangelical who is often found standing at the immediate right hand of the POTUS claims that God is not an “open borders” guy.

In this Fox News interview, Jeffress says that Christians are “confused about the difference between the church and government.”  For Jeffress, “government’s real responsibility is to protect its citizens.”

The interviewer, Ainsley Earhardt, concludes the interview by saying, “It’s tough because the Bible does tell us to honor our authorities, to follow the rule of law, to follow all of the laws–and the laws are clear in this situation–but also have compassion for others. So it is a tough topic.”  Jeffress responds with a hearty “yes” to this statement.

Though Jeffress does not mention it in this interview, his idea of government seems to arise from his interpretation of St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, chapter 13.  Here is the pertinent part of that chapter:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Does anyone know where I can find a book or article or sermon where Jeffress develops his theory of government or interprets Romans 13?  Every time he mentions this text he sounds like he is an 18th-century Loyalist invoking Romans 13 in opposition to the American Revolution.  I wonder if Jeffress would go so far to say that the American Revolution–a rebellion against the God-ordained governing authorities of England–would have been carried out in violation of this biblical principle.  I wonder if he would agree, for example, with evangelical pastor John MacArthur‘s conclusion that “the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.”  Somehow I don’t think he does.

Court Evangelical: Trump “100 percent is a Christian who understands repentance.

donald-trump-and-pastor-paula-white

One of the court evangelicals appeared over the weekend at the Religion News Association conference in Nashville.  She had a lot to say about the POTUS.  Here is a taste of Emily McFarlan Miller’s reporting at Religion News Service:

White also said that Trump “100 percent is a Christian who understands … repentance,” though, as his pastor, she said she wouldn’t divulge what he has repented for.

And in response to a question from freelance religion reporter Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, she said there “absolutely” is a line Trump could cross that would cause her to criticize him publicly, though she also would not say what that line might be.

“Yes, there is a line with the president, or any line that if I felt was in extreme violation, I would publicly criticize,” she said. “We tend to privately criticize and publicly stay together because I believe that’s how within a family, within church, within leadership, that is how things should be handled.”

Read the entire piece here.

I also see from the photo at the RNS site that Johnnie Moore, the fellow court evangelical, self-proclaimed Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and public relations guy, is standing by White’s side as she gets grilled by reporters.

What Some Non-Court Evangelicals are Saying About the Court Evangelicals

Donald_Trump_delivers_remarks_at_the_Liberty_University (1)

Should Christians be advising Donald Trump?  Over at Christianity Today, Kate Shellnut has collected responses to this question from court evangelicals and evangelicals who do not have access to the court.

Here are some of the non-court evangelical responses:

Gary Burge, visiting professor at Calvin Theological Seminary:

Pastors need to weigh the difference between beneficial access to a troublesome leader and endorsement by association. On the one hand, such access—if it is making a difference—may be important and valuable. This is when a prophetic voice could be heard or where truth-to-power is present. But such associations are also seductive. Our motive for them may not be clear even to us.

In addition, troubling leaders can cross a line where rejecting any association is itself a prophetic act. And pastors need to ready for that as well. Some pastors might revisit the context of the Barmen Declaration in 1930s Germany. Not because 2017 is paralleled by 1934, but because those pastors’ discernment and courage is parallel. In that case the pastoral voice needed to be heard in public outside the halls of power.

Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

There’s no off-the-shelf answer when it comes to knowing exactly what counsel Christians should give wayward political leaders. It depends on facts and circumstances, so they have to rely on wisdom, good judgment, and spiritual maturity. It’s helpful to keep in mind the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said the church should be the conscience of the state and never its tool. That’s especially the case when it comes to associating with a political leader who acts in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with a Christian ethic.

The perennial danger facing Christians is seduction and self-delusion. That’s what’s happening in the Trump era. The president is using evangelical leaders to shield himself from criticism; and they, in turn, are dressing up their manipulation in spiritual garb. Evangelicals with moral wisdom and spiritual discernment should disassociate themselves from a man who is using them in ways that discredits the public witness of Christianity.

Ben Witherington, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary:

The sinners and tax collectors were not political officials so there is no analogy there. Besides, Jesus was not giving the sinners and tax collectors political advice—he was telling them to repent! If that’s what evangelical leaders are doing with our President, and telling him when his policies are un-Christian, and explaining to him that racism is an enormous sin and there is no moral equivalency between the two sides in Charlottesville, then well and good. Otherwise, they are complicit with the sins of our leaders.

Dwight McKissic, Southern Baptist leader and pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church, specifically on what advisers should say regarding Charlottesville:

Mr. President, we respect and support your commitment to place conservative judges on the Supreme Court; but we disagree with your Charlottesville commentary regarding there being “fine people” among the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” march. We disagree with your position that those protesting people are just as evil as the KKK, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists. … Please repudiate your Charlottesville comments or we will be forced to repudiate you. We respect you and the Office of the President, but we do not respect your Charlottesville comments.

Read Shellnut’s entire piece here.

The Court Evangelical Spin on DACA

Trump court evangelicals

Believe it or not, the court evangelicals have managed to spin this entire DACA fiasco in their favor.

According to Heather Sells’s article at Christian Broadcast Network News, court evangelicals Tony Suarez, Jentezen Franklin, Bishop Harry Jackson, and Johnnie Moore are patting themselves on the back for speaking “truth to power.”

It seems the court evangelicals believe that they were influential in convincing Trump to wait for six months before he deports 800,000 children of immigrants who came into the United States illegally.  It seems the court evangelicals are optimistic that Congress will get its act together and pass legislation that protects the DACA recipients.

Here is a taste of Sells’s piece:

Evangelicals on the President’s informal faith advisory board believe their access to the White House made a difference in protecting young immigrants from an immediate end to what’s known as the DACA program.

Rev. Tony Suarez, executive vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), told CBN News Tuesday, “I feel like our work on the faith advisory council is vindicated today…this is precisely why we joined way back in the campaign last year because we felt if we had access to this office, if we had access to this man we needed to speak truth to power, believing that at some point God would touch, God would convict and there would be compassion for children.”

Members of the president’s faith advisory council met with him and White House officials on Friday and discussed DACA as well as other political priorities. Council member Bishop Harry Jackson attended and told CBN News he thinks the board helped to make a difference for Dreamers–as those in the DACA program are often known. “The evangelical church had the president’s ear,” he said calling the six month extension “an extreme act of mercy.”

I understand the argument, but is this really speaking truth to power?  Are these court evangelicals really patting themselves on the back for placing nearly 1 million Americans in a state of constant anxiety about their future?  Will the DACA recipients be gone in six months–deported to the countries of their birth? (The video below suggests that the Department of Justice has already told them to start packing).  Will they get a reprieve from Congress?  Is Trump so wed to his anti-immigration/law and order base that he is incapable of showing empathy for these people?  And then, to top it all off, he tweeted last night that he might revisit DACA if Congress does not come through.  Is he for DACA or against it?  If he will revisit it in 6 months why not revisit it now?  Where is the presidential leadership here?  Lead, Donald.  Please lead!

I don’t know what role the court evangelicals played in this whole situation, but I find it hard to believe that any evangelical would be happy with the results.  Once again Barack Obama has driven the court evangelicals off the moral playing field.

Watch this video:

 

“All the President’s Clergymen”

Trump_Prayer_090117_HD1080_img_408081The reporters at Religion News Service–Adelle M. Banks, Emily McFarlan Miller, Yonat Shimron, and Jerome Socolovsky–have produced the best piece on the court evangelicals to date.  The article is based on interviews with many of the prominent court evangelicals, as well as scholars and pundits who have been monitoring the comings and goings of Trump’s evangelical advisers.

And I am happy to have contributed to it.

Here are some things I learned from reading “All the president’s clergymen: A close look at Trump’s ‘unprecedented’ ties with evangelicals“:

  • Court evangelicals “fumbled with their iPhones go get them selfie-ready as they made their way to the oval office.”
  • Court evangelicals claimed to be “overwhelmed” by their encounter with the POTUS, although it is not clear if they were overwhelmed by the POTUS himself or the “Holy Spirit.”
  • There is no formal “Evangelical Advisory Council.”  Some court evangelicals are not sure if they are part of the group or not.  Others claim they have had up to a dozen meetings with Trump since he took office.
  • The court evangelicals do not want to be part of something formal.  A formal council would come with “certain legal ramifications.”
  • Despite what the court evangelicals say in their public statements, they have had very little impact on policy decisions.
  • The churches associated with the National Council of Churches (mainline Protestants, Orthodox, and historically black denominations) have been “frozen out” of the Trump administration.  The same is true of Muslim and Sikh religious groups.
  • The court evangelicals are divided over the degree to which they influenced the transgender ban on soldiers in the military.

Sebastian Gorka and “Courtier Culture”

Gorka

I like the way Michael Vlahos, a professor of strategy and war at Johns Hopkins, uses the idea of “courtier culture” to describe the role that Sebastian Gorka played in the Trump White House.  Reminds me a bit of the court evangelicals.

Here is a taste of his piece at The American Conservative

The courtier culture in Washington, the imperial city, is not recognized for what it is. It is sensed by all, while called out by none. Yet the courtier culture is the managing class for all foreign and domestic policy, and the lubricant of all palace intrigue. The invidious intimacy of the courtier ethos was curiously laid bare in the Aug. 25 exit of a loud anti-courtier courtier: Sebastian Gorka.  

Was ever such a short-lived, minor retainer like Gorka accorded such an extravagant send-off? True, he was fêted in rebuke rather than bon mot, yet the farewell remains, notwithstanding, a tribute of a kind. I am sure Gorka feels insulted and injured, and not without cause. Yet his departure actually represents something of an achievement.

Courtiers with larger followings and longer legs, after all, found him profoundly worthy of insult, and surely, their need to inflict injury is a mark, however unintended, of deep respect. All those bilious column inches expended on a man of little influence and zero role in the intrigues of palace chambers! How does that happen?

Read the rest here.

A Court Evangelical Backs Trump’s DACA Decision

It looks like Trump is doing away with the DACA program.

300 evangelical leaders support DACA and urged Trump to keep the program.  These include religious leaders associated with the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, World Relief, and World Vision.

Court evangelical Pastor Mark Burns is not one of these evangelical leaders.  As Warren Throckmorton noted today, Burns has tweeted in support of Trump’s decision to end DACA.

Make America Great Again.

Where are the Court Evangelicals Tonight? (DACA)

Donald Trump threw another bone to his base today by announcing the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  Read about it here.

New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman offers some nuance:

So far, the only court evangelical who has said the ending of the DACA program is unjust and unChristian is  Samuel Rodriguez.  I hope that Rodriguez used his unprecedented access and “God-given assignment” to rebuke the president for this decision.  I hope he did everything in his power to change Trump’s mind.

So far the rest of the court evangelicals have been silent.  Apparently 300 religious leaders urged Trump to keep the DACA program, but I have not been able to find a list of those leaders.  I will be surprised if there are any court evangelicals on the list apart from Rodriguez.

In the video below, court evangelical Robert Jeffress praises his own prayer in the White House last week as part of the most disturbing display of court flattery I have ever seen.  Where was the discussion of DACA at this meeting? Why didn’t the court evangelicals use their access to the Oval Office to defend these helpless children of immigrants who may soon be deported?  This, it seems to me, is a pro-life issue.  These kids may be ripped from their families and sent to a foreign country to live.  Yet the court evangelicals preferred a photo-op and a round of flattery.  I hope Jeffress will be praying for the 800,000 men and women who will be deported when and if the DACA program is ended.