I heard something yesterday about why some evangelicals decided to vote for Trump. Their rationale is that Trump is a recent convert to Christianity. That he’s a new believer. They argue that he’s repented from all of the actions that people are disturbed by and that he’s a new creation.
Personally I’m not sure I’d buy this, but I’ll admit that it’s within the realm of possibility. I’m a big believer in repentance and in giving people second chances.
But, the interesting thing for me, is this. “What if this is true? What if Trump has truly represented and is committed to living a new life?”
If this is actually true, then what does it say about those who claim Christianity, yet are committed to liberal politics? What does it say about people who would engage in attacks on the character of someone who has just recently turned their life over to Christ? Let’s compare what we see from progressive Christians to the way Jesus, Peter, or Paul treated new believers.
Honestly, if this is true, there are a bunch of conservatives who probably owe Trump an apology.
Clearly this is all hypothetical and I’m not presenting it as anything but hypothetical. I’m not saying I give the notion any credence, I definitely don’t want “evidence” that “disproves” the hypothetical. I’d suggest that virtually no one who becomes a believer instantly transforms their behavior. I’d also suggest that how willing believers are to accept and embrace new believers might be something that we all need to work on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
what does it say about those who claim Christianity, yet are committed to liberal politics? What does it say about people who would engage in attacks on the character of someone who has just recently turned their life over to Christ?
IF it's true that Trump has a history of amorality, sexual predatory behavior, corruption and vulgar, base dishonest
AND it's true that Trump is a brand new Christian as of, say, Nov 2016, does it preclude Christians (liberal and conservative and otherwise) from denouncing the vulgar and unrepentant nature of a man who continues to act in a corrupt and dishonest manner WHO IS ALSO the president of the US?
No, of course not.
Look, I think Trump is a deeply damaged human being. I suspect his upbringing was ethically perverse, with his family having pledged allegiance to hedonism and materialism and shaped and damaged the boy, Trump. Whether or not he's converted to Christianity, I can feel sympathy for this clearly troubled human being, as an individual.
BUT, that doesn't mean I give a leader a pass on unending corruption and false claims and attacks on the press and immigrants.
Do you think it should mean that?
Let’s compare what we see from progressive Christians to the way Jesus, Peter, or Paul treated new believers.
Jesus watched the rich young man walk away and he was saddened by the corruption that kept the rich young man from God.
BUT, that didn't mean that Jesus and his apostles quit preaching about the corruption of the powerful and the wealthy or the dangers of wealth.
There's two things (at least) at play in the case of world leaders or people in a position to oppress or cause harm: ONE is the concern for them, as a fellow human. I say we should have that. But SECONDLY, there is the oppression and harm that such a person can and does cause. We must side with the poor and oppressed, if we're going to be followers of Jesus and/or just decent and responsible citizens.
If Trump has repented and changed his ways, let's see a change. If he's truly working on making a change, maybe he needs to let go of his privilege and power first (as Jesus commanded of the rich man) THEN work on truly embracing his repentance and a life of grace.
I'll remind you also of John the Baptist's words to the powerful who came to him to repent...
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them:
“You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
No, I don't think giving powerful oppressors a pass because they've made a claim to repent (with no changed lives to reflect that) is the way to go.
Trump, produce fruit in keeping with repentance.
Do not think you can say, "But I've become a Christian..." I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up Christians. The ax is already at the root of the trees and every tree that does not produce good fruit WILL be cut down and thrown into the fire.
I think that would be the better biblical model to heed.
"IF it's true that Trump has a history of amorality, sexual predatory behavior, corruption and vulgar, base dishonest"
This isn't a sentence, it's neither a question or a statement.
"AND it's true that Trump is a brand new Christian as of, say, Nov 2016, does it preclude Christians (liberal and conservative and otherwise) from denouncing the vulgar and unrepentant nature of a man who continues to act in a corrupt and dishonest manner WHO IS ALSO the president of the US?"
"No, of course not."
Are you really suggesting that it's in any way consistent with Christianity to continue to attack and spew vitriol at a new convert for behavior that they engaged in prior to their conversion?
"Produce fruit in keeping with repentance."
This is literally the only thing in your rant that makes sense in the context of the hypothetical nature of the post, and my request that we NOT introduce "“evidence” that “disproves” the hypothetical.".
Maybe you don't understand the nature of a hypothetical.
"Do you think it should mean that?"
No.
Beyond that everything else is what I specifically asked be avoided.
The point of the hypothetical was to accept the premise, that Trump had gone through a legitimate and sincere conversion experience. That premise pretty much explicitly excludes presuming the opposite.
What you have done, exceedingly well is demonstrate the kind of response that a progressive christian would give when someone they hate comes to Christ. While I deeply question your ability to set aside your hatred of Trump, or to follow directions, you have nonetheless provided a valuable service and I thank you for that.
To address your one valid point. Yes, I would expect anyone who claimed to have become a believer in Christ to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance". However, I would not expect perfection. I would certainly distinguish between behaviors from decades ago and behaviors since the conversion.
I guess the question is: does someone who judges others harshly, directs vitriol and expletive filled rants at other believers, and engages in and countenances lying, actually exhibiting "fruit in keeping with repentance?
If you can't follow the rules, don't bitch if your comments don't appear or get edited to conform with the rules. Or, if I choose the way of grace and allow you free reign, then have the courtesy to acknowledge that.
I guess the question is: does someone who judges others harshly, directs vitriol and expletive filled rants at other believers, and engages in and countenances lying, actually exhibiting "fruit in keeping with repentance?
and
Are you really suggesting that it's in any way consistent with Christianity to continue to attack and spew vitriol at a new convert for behavior that they engaged in prior to their conversion?
In a word, YES. It is the appropriate way to deal with oppressive leaders, with men who prey upon women, with those who make false claims and attack the truth, with those who demonize immigrants and "the least of these." Yes, of course, it is appropriate, EVEN IF they are new believers.
Jesus did it with his religious leaders, as did John the Baptist and others. The point I'm making is that it's one thing how I might handle Trump, the individual, if he were at my church or in my neighborhood. But it's another matter if the oppressor is a leader in a position to cause great harm. We must stand against oppressors and with the oppressed. I think that's the biblical model, the Christian model and the reasonable model.
You brood of vipers!
Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
That's not simple easy acceptance of fellow believers because they're fellow believers. It's a stern rebuke against oppressors and that is appropriate, if you look at the text and context of Jesus, James, the prophets, etc.
Are you suggesting that such oppressors in positions of power should get a pass if they make a claim to have repented?
Beyond that everything else is what I specifically asked be avoided.
I was literally answer the question you asked. It was not my intent to suggest that the claim was not true. I'm saying EVEN IF it's true that he has repented, IF he continues to oppress and cause harm, THEN we have an obligation to stand with the oppressed against the oppressor.
I'm sorry if that was not clear.
I would certainly distinguish between behaviors from decades ago and behaviors since the conversion.
Since the "conversion," and in the past five years he's been in the public eye politically, he has told thousands of false claims, has continued to speak abusively towards women, has denied any serious wrong-doing in the past (instead of confessing to his crimes and misdeeds), he has assaulted his political enemies and the press non-stop, he has preyed on fears of conservatives by demonizing and attacking immigrants, he has not made restitutions for his many corruptions and continues to deny they exist... in short, he's acted more like the con man that he is than a repentant person.
Not that I'm expecting perfection out of a troubled man. Again, this is not about Trump, the deeply disturbed pervert, con man and liar... it is about a corrupt and dangerous leader who is wholly untrustworthy. We SHOULD speak out against such perverts, deviants and con men. Even harshly, as Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, James the Apostle and the prophets all did.
Do you disagree?
Clearly the concept of a hypothetical and the limitations I’ve laid out are either too confusing for you or you’ve just chosen to ignore them.
FYI, you’re not Jesus. You’re making it clear that grace isn’t a big part of your life.
I guess pointing out that in the case of the women caught in adultery, and the prostitute who washed Jesus’ feet, among other examples Jesus chose to welcome repentant people with love, grace and warmth. I guess this new GR morality allows for welcoming those who convert with suspicion and criticism.
"If this is actually true, then what does it say about those who claim Christianity, yet are committed to liberal politics? "
Not sure I'm getting the question. Do you refer to alleged Christians who are liberals, or liberals who've recently come to Christ? If it's the latter, they too may have to be given time to reject liberal policies as they have to have the time to understand the faith to know that it is incompatible with leftism. How much time is up in the air.
But for libs who have always been Christian (according to their claims to have been), they are obviously lost. To be an actual Christian who chooses leftism could be a matter of low intellect, or it could be moral corruption, but some just aren't very bright.
" What does it say about people who would engage in attacks on the character of someone who has just recently turned their life over to Christ?"
Nothing good, especially those who attack from afar. Like Kentucky bloggers.
"Honestly, if this is true, there are a bunch of conservatives who probably owe Trump an apology."
Not so much an apology as a welcome. Those conservatives who couldn't bring themselves to support Trump pre-conversion had his character as a reason. If he's repented, that can be put aside to welcome him aboard.
Personally, I hope it's true and not just an act. I hope it's true and he fully realizes what it means and makes a real effort to understand how to be a Christian...just like we all spend our lives doing. I've known a few in my life who "converted" and then rejected it when they felt it cramped their styles too much. The guy's old and being an old horndog, it might be too hard to learn new tricks...even the God-pleasing kind.
"BUT, that doesn't mean I give a leader a pass on unending corruption and false claims and attacks on the press and immigrants."
Dan makes far more false claims than does Trump. Worse, Dan has been corrected on many false claims he's made of Trump and he continues to make them anyway. Just the above quote is troubling to say the least. What does he mean by "unending corruption"? An example would be nice.
Attacking a miscreant press is justified. And since he's so often the target of their bad behavior, he has the right to call them out.
Trump doesn't attack "immigrants". He "attacks" illegal immigrants. Dan knows this but lies in refusing to acknowledge it.
"BUT, that didn't mean that Jesus and his apostles quit preaching about the corruption of the powerful and the wealthy or the dangers of wealth."
You're right, except that's because they never started. They spoke of mankind's corruption, not just that of the powerful and wealthy.
"We must side with the poor and oppressed, if we're going to be followers of Jesus and/or just decent and responsible citizens."
"the poor and oppressed" There's far fewer of those since Trump took office thanks to his policies. But there are still people like Dan who continue to oppress the unborn person and drive people into poverty by the politics and ideology they support.
"If Trump has repented and changed his ways, let's see a change."
How I'd love to see a change in Dan. Sadly, he seems adamant in remaining as corrupt as he is.
"If he's truly working on making a change, maybe he needs to let go of his privilege and power first (as Jesus commanded of the rich man) THEN work on truly embracing his repentance and a life of grace."
I could build fence around my yard with the plank the size of that which is in Dan's eyes. Who is he to suggest how Trump should live his life before first correcting his own? And Jesus never "commanded" the rich young man to do anything. He simply told him what he should do to get what He wanted. Trump may indeed have too great a devotion to his wealth. That's a matter of the heart which Dan has no ability to divine. But one can be wealthy and still put God above all things. Dan might want to abandon his devotion to sanctimonious posturing and repent.
RE your first question. It’s asking if people who claim to be Christian can set aside their political differences in order to welcome a new believer into the family. Essentially, how do their priorities line up with God’s. Do they rejoice with the angels, or continue to spew vitriol.
That’s not saying they have to agree with every policy, just that it’s important to acknowledge someone moving from death to life.
Clearly this hypothetical is centered around Trump because he’s so polarizing, but the same hypothetical could be structured with Bernie as well.
I completely agree that Jesus rule for the rich young man was not a specific rule for all people in all times to divest themselves of their wealth. If Dan really believes that, but hasn’t followed it, that tells us something. Jesus used wealth as an example of the young mans god, of the thing he wasn’t willing to let go of in order to get eternal life. If one takes that interaction in a woodenly literal sense, then Jesus is clearly teaching a transactional salvation based on the young man’s works. But let’s not let theology get in the way of forcing one’s economic beliefs on others.
Post a Comment