Both in 2016 and again in 2024, some Evangelical Christians, including me, expressed serious concerns both about the election of President Trump and the support he was receiving from Evangelical thought leaders. Whilst such concerns are strongly shared by many, there has also been a dismissiveness from others.
For example, Evangelicals Now published two articles, one before the election and one around the inauguration arguing that pretty much the only reason that Christians here in the UK were negative to Trump was because of a kind of cultural snobbery, concerns raised were either ignored or dismissed.[1]
However, since Trump’s election, he has demanded that Greenland and the Panama Canal are either sold or given to the US including intimating that if his demands are not met then military forces could be deployed. He has also suggested that Gaza could be cleared of Palestinians and turned into a resort. Now he is beginning to attempt to negotiate a deal with Russia which would essentially carve up Ukraine.[2]
It seems reasonable at the juncture to stop and ask those who belittled and dismissed our concerns what we got wrong about Trump. It may be that some of them are still unclear as to what is wrong with what Trump has been saying and doing. However, it should be obvious that he has been overtly mimicking the way that Putin has been behaving towards his neighbours, sabre rattling, threatening and intimidating in the name of making Russia great again. Trump is either pursuing these goals for nationalistic reasons, for the enrichment of himself and friends or both. Threatening the security and sovereignty of others, backed by military might and economic muscle robs the West of any moral voice to challenge what Putin has been doing.
One of the ways in which our concerns were dismissed was that we were told that to be sure there were bad things about Trump but these were effectively treated as peripheral. However, the reality is that those things are central to his political agenda.
The situation with regards to Ukraine is now grave. Trump’s demands that Ukraine must hold elections turn a deliberately blind eye to the reality that free and fair elections are not possible whilst the nation is not only at war but partially occupied with much of the population displaced. The fear that an election might result in a Putin puppet is well documented. He has reportedly demanded access to billions of dollars worth of mineral rights in return for any ongoing support for Ukraine. Finally, the proposed peace plan involves Russia continuing to occupy significant parts of the country with no prospect of their return. Ukraine would remain outside of Nato but European Countries including the UK would be expected to provide troops to police the new border.[3]
In effect, this would be to carve up Ukraine between Putin and Trump. The East would be clearly under Putin’s control. Putin’s hope would be that electrinos would result in one of his stooges being elected so that in the long term, Ukraine would come fully under his influence. The United States would benefit economically at least from short term influence. At the same time, Trump will not commit his own armed forces. Britain and the EU would be drawn in and made complicit in Putin and Trump’s carve up.
In that light, the response of our own Prime Minister has been deeply irresponsible. He has expressed willingness to commit British forces to Ukraine and urged other European nations to do so. This is morally wrong and strategically dangerous. Our position from day one has been that the end of the war must involve the return of all sovereign Ukrainian territory from Russian occupation. It seems that we are now willing to give up on that. By expressing willingness to facilitate the carve up, we embolden Trump and Putin whilst weakening Ukraine’s negotiating position.
Furthermore, we will be putting our armed forces in harms way and without the security benefits of Ukraine having NATO membership. The result would be that we could be pulled into armed conflict and indeed without clarity over the situation, a real risk of that conflict escalating and widening. We would be in direct confrontation with a nuclear super-power with all the implications that this holds.
Keir Starmer should have been very clear in his response that we remain committed to seeing a just peace with a return to the original borders. If there is to be any relinquishing of territory then it must be seen as a temporary measure to allow a cease-fire and longer term negotiations. We should be clear that no party to peace talks or involved in maintaining peace afterwards should directly benefit economically. He should also have insisted that Ukraine be given the full security benefits and assurances of NATO membership. We might note that many of the concerns raised about Keir Starmer before his election are proving true as well.
All of this means that the world is now less safe than it was at the end of 2024. It also means that those excuses for supporting Trump have been stripped away, though I worry that many will still not see it. How do we respond? Well, it is worth remembering that for US citizens, the case for giving respect and obedience to their President was never that he was a wonderful man, pursuing a godly agenda, with or without defects. Rather, it is that we are called to submit to the authorities, even the immoral tyrants of Paul’s day, in so far as they do not go against God’s law.[4]
Finally, although the world may feel more fragile and less safe today than it did at the end of last year, the crucial fact that God is sovereign hasn’t changed. This does not mean that dictators won’t get their way. It doesn’t mean that the worst-case scenario will not be realised. However, it does mean that whatever happens will not be a surprise to God, it will be within his plans and will support his purpose of growing his kingdom and glorifying his name.
[1] See Trump 2.0: Understanding why people support him | Evangelicals Now and my response Thank you for telling me what I think – Faithroots
[2] With regards to Gaza, I’m aware that many Israeli sympathisers have expressed a desire for Gaza to be cleared and the people resettled. I understand that this arises out of strong emotions following the horrors of the October terrorist attack. However, not only do I disagree with that suggestion, I also note a difference between the emotive response and a calculating desire to in effect seize the land for national and personal commercial gain.
[3] Fascinatingly, I am just preparing a sermon on Obadiah and there are disturbing parallels to be seen with the way in which Edom started by standing aloof as Judah was subjected to violence, then moved to taking advantage of Judah’s suffering. The warning is that in the end Edoim were complicit in the violence.
[4] Now, this does raise some ethical questions about whether or not a Christian serving in the UK armed forces should refuse to serve in Ukraine if ordered to, under the correct proposed settlement. However, that’s a bigger question than we have space and time for today.
Faithroots 