What Would Jesus Tweet?

t's time to address the elephant in the room. The strong support of certain Christian groups for Donald Trump has perplexed the community of the biblical faithful for a long time. But many of them have remained circumspect in their critique, for no better reason I could think of than keeping the peace. There's no point--or at least nothing to be gained--in questioning the revelation of others in regard to the secular workings of government. You would only be pitting preacher against preacher and be forced to resort to unbelievable contortionism of the Scriptures to buttress your theory. Many have tried before and ended up simply talking past each other, resolving little and explaining even less.

   The heathen, unbound by inner self-conflicts of religious doctrine, have the enviable ease of dismissing the whole thing simply as a function of demographics. The WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) have traditionally been a conservative bailiwick (thus leaning Republican), just as more progressive pentecostals tended to be more liberal (thus leaning Democratic). 

   However, oversimplistic criteria like that have failed to capture the presumptive persuasion in other issues, ranging from race relations, civil rights, equal opportunity or affirmative action. Take slavery alone, the moral-philosophical divide that distinguished the two sides of the Civil War. Industrial north abhorred slave labor, agricultural south thought it was indispensable.  And yet Southern Democrats were some of the biggest advocates of preserving the institution of slavery. It took a Republican president--Abraham Lincoln--to end it.

   Atheists and agnostics--and who doesn't know one?--completely write off the moral element in this community's common conviction. In their view, evangelicals supporting Trump is no great mystery at all. After all, Donald Trump--and this will tickle him pink--is an angel compared to the ruthless kings of God's chosen people. 

   Only two of the first four kings of the United Kingdom (of Israel, not Great Britain!)  David and his son Solomon were considered "righteous." The other two, Saul and his son Ishbosheth were fencesitters, if not downright evil. David's adultery with Batsheba was made possible by his murder of her first husband Uriah. Even Donald Trump's legendary libido couldn't possibly top that. And Solomon's harem of seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines makes Donald Trump look like a celibate monk.

   After unified Israel divided into two kingdoms in 925 BC, the bible itself evaluated as "righteous"  only 8 out of 20 kings of the southern kingdom of Judah, and only 1 out of 19 kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. 

   All of that is not even surprising in the overall scheme of things as far as being "evil" goes. A friend of mine Ray Salvosa for whose intellectual mettle I have a very high regard posits that God himself was the first international terrorist. For years, he kept pointing out to me that if the idea of terrorism is to visit violence upon the state to obtain concessions for a largish oppressed underclasss, then what else would you call God's ten plagues on Pharaoh to liberate nearly three million Israelite slaves?

   Old Testament accounts of the war exploits of Israel's marauding army against all its neighbors are a grisly chronicle of genocide that will shame any modern-day intifadah by comparison. 

   But the rest of the bible present some of the noblest, most moving images of love and self-sacrifice. The most poignant of these is the defining theology of Christianity itself--God acquiescing to the crucifixion of His own son to atone for a humanity that, left to their own device, could love neither Him nor the son He sacrificed.   

   The point is, neither the predisposition to do good or historic propensity to do bad  is a reliable metric to gauge the Christian position in explaining why it supports unlikely champions like Donald Trump.  And, maybe, that is the key to breaking the code.   Maybe Christianity had nothing to do with how Christians engage their politics at all.

   There is at least uncontroverted biblical proof that Jesus demurred from political discussions.  "Tell us then, what is your opinion, is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?" the Pharisees asked him. Jesus didn't spring for the chance to do a seminar on God and Politics, instead dismissing them,"Why are you trying to trap me?" (Matt. 22:17,18). 

   I have heard many preachings that say the ensuing conversation between Jesus and the people who asked him that question is the instruction manual for Christian political engagement, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." I realize that for years, even I have been teaching that to my students in law school as the basis for the separation of Church and State.  

   In fact, we all missed the point that while the Roman coin bearing Caesar's image does belong to Caesar, Caesar himself as every other molecule in the universe belongs to God. There is no divide between Christian and secular because there is only creation and one Creator.  Whether you subscribe to this idea or not is immaterial. 

   You either believe that God exists and stands for good, or He doesn't exist, period.  Because if we allow the idea that God can be evil--or can countenance the ways of evil--then the atheists are correct: there is no point in having a God at all.  Who wants to serve an evil God? In fact, what would distinguish service to an evil God from service to the devil?  God can only be good and everything you do in His name can only be set in a framework consistent with his perfect goodness.

   If a believer of God claims that his political opinion is informed by his understanding of the character of God, then he cannot justify the defects of his human political idol by saying there have been more wicked men in the bible. That is moral cowardice. Man up and say you support an evil person but don't charge your decision to a holy God.  That was your human choice and God had no part in it. So evangelical Christians who support unrighteous leaders are not doing anything unique or original. The stiff-necked Israelites of the Old Testament have supported more ungodly kings. But to say that modern times now make collaboration between light and dark acceptable is heresy from ancient days.

   There were no elections and no campaigning for public office during the time of Jesus.  The Christian, therefore,  who claims to lean on the bible for the wisdom of his electoral choice is leaning on air. And even though it is purely speculative, we know plenty from all over Scripture what Jesus' exacting standard would have been in choosing any king: find one that is in the image and mold of God. Or come as close as you can get.

   Is it any wonder, then, that Donald Trump goes before the Christian community claiming he is the Anointed One--short of the spitting image of God Himself? No.

   What is a  wonder is the fact that some in that community believe him. Ⓒ 2020 Joel R. Dizon

NOTE FROM JOEL: Hi, folks! Recently, I started a YouTube channel which is called "Parables and Reason" It  is kind of similar to this blog content-wise. You can check out my channel by clicking the link below:

 Joel R. Dizon - PARABLES AND REASON