Rhys Laverty writes “In Defence of Trump” in Evangelicals Now. You may be a bit bored with discussion about US politics here on Faithroots but as the article came out during my recent debate with Robert Gagnon about such matters, I thought it was worth picking up on the article. I will try and move on to other topics afterwards, I promise.
I think it is worth saying up front, that given my position in recent articles, we need to be just as careful about treating Trump as demonic as treating the Democrats that way. We also need to be careful thar we don’t attempt to force fit US politics onto a European or British model. A lot of rhetoric may cause us to see Trump and MAGA as equivalent to the AFD and other alt-right movements in Europe. Incidentally, whilst I have significant issues with Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, the same is true of them. There are significant and important differences. Additionally whilst Farage and Reform are perhaps the closest European comparison to Trump/MAGA there are also differences between them as well. The danger is that we create caricatures to attack and as a result, we miss significant and concerning problems.
However, I think that there are three significant issues with the EN article. The first issue is not with the article itself but with EN’s editorial approach. There is an editorial note at the bottom which says:
“The author writes in a personal capacity. en is committed to publishing a range of views on Donald Trump, recognising the strength of feeling held by many both for and against his presidency; for other perspectives, see for example this piece and this item.”
This seems to suggest that EN is taking a kind of neutral position here. Yet do they and should they? We might ask why EN even feels the need to be committed to publishing articles about Trump at all. What is their aim as a British, Evangelical newspaper? That they sit back and say they are going to provide a variety of views is to itself take a position on Trump, in effect they are taking a position that he is credible and that it is okay for Christians to support him. This is important because the counter argument is not just that there is serious disagreement but that it isn’t credible for Christians to support and endorce (which is different to reluctantly voting for).
Incidentally, we see a similar kind of claim in Laverty’s article where he claims, first that:
“One thing most British evangelicals have in common with the majority of their fellow countrymen is a shared dislike of Donald Trump. What’s more, many of us experience bafflement at Trump’s popularity among our American evangelical cousins.”
Once again, as seems to happen in most if not all Evangelical articles defending Trump, we are told not just what we think but why and there’s this loaded assertion that we are just a bit emotional about it all. Laverty on the other hand claims that:
“I do not share this dislike and bafflement, however. As a Brit, my attitude toward American politics is largely “not my circus, not my monkey.” But I want to offer a defence of Trump. And not just of why people may have voted for him back in November 2024, but why they can feel justified in having done so six months later.”
He sets himself up as the disinterested, dispassionate provider of reason and yet, it is clear that he is very much invested in what we think about Trump.
In terms of Laverty’s article, there are four problems with it. First, he tells us:
“it’s important to understand the bigger picture. Many Brits imagine that the 2024 American election was ultimately an inconsequential choice between two politicians which won’t make much difference. This is why we can’t fathom choosing someone as controversial as Trump over Kamala Harris. But there is an underlying assumption here worth questioning: that America is basically fine. But this is simply not how many Americans see it. In fact, they think that the very basics of a functioning society were being lost under Joe Biden. This is why I think Trump is an eminently defensible, if thoroughly imperfect, choice: he is a “back to basics” president at a time when this is sorely needed.”
That’s a rather bizarre claim to make. To argue that Trump was a bad choice for president and that Christians shouldn’t support him is not to argue that everything was fine in America and in fact, I don’t think anyone was arguing that. It doesn’t work logically because, Laverty himself acknowledges that Trump isn’t imperfect. By implication then, things were not all fine when he was president before and are not now. Nor is the argument that the decision was inconsequential, though some of us have argued (as with other elections such as 2019 in the UK) that both choices were equally unpalatable. Nor, does the fact that there were significant issues under the previous administration or the weakness of the alternative mean that “Trump is an eminently “defensible …choice .” As for the president being “a back to basics” leader, well that’s intriguing partly because I’m not sure what Laverty means by that and partly because the precedent for “back to basics politicians” isn’t a great one.[1]
Second, there is the presumption and dismissiveness towards others concerns that we have seen pretty consistently in Evangelical defences of Trump. Again, we are told that we just don’t like him, don’t understand America and this time in addition are accused of being Pharisees. Once again, the real concerns and objections to Trump are not considered.
This misses the point that it is not as simple as saying “Here are three good things he is doing, as though those make up for the bad.” We are in danger of entering “At least Stalin got the trains to run on time” territory. It also, therefore, takes us to the third issue, a failure to make careful distinctions.
First, there is a difference between saying “Donald Trump” can be defended and saying “Donald Trump has done some things that can be defended. There is a difference between saying that we care about borders, gender and justice versus saying that caring about those things means you have to vote for a specific person.
Secondly, he fails to distinguish between caring about principles and disagreeing about policies. This means that first of all it may be possible for a Democrat and a Republican to agree on the need for justice but to disagree with what that looks like and where the priroities are. Secondly, it is possible that someone reaches a conclusion that brings justice but in fact, the principle of justice is not their primary priority.
In terms of that specific issue, therefore, the defence that some of Trump’s policies bring about greater justice does not deal with the concern that he has said and done things that undermine justice. To give one example outside of internal US politics and therefore more within our sphere of knowledge, what would be a just settlement to the Ukraine war? Surely it would require the aggressor to retreat and to make reparations. We also see there, that whilst President Trump may care about the US’ borders, he demonstrates by his approach to Ukraine, his use of trade and tariff policy to influence the internal domestic affairs of other countries and his attempts to absorb Greenland into the US that he isn’t too worried about others’ borders.
Thirdly, I’m afraid that on the issue of borders, Laverty’s exegesis is woeful. He writes:
In Acts 17:26, the Apostle Paul affirms that God Himself ordains the existence of distinct nations and their borders: “From one man [God] made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.” Borders allow rulers to govern their nations effectively. Without them, the very idea of different nations — which the Bible both assumes and affirms — becomes incoherent.
Acts 17 has nothing whatsoever to do with God affirming borders. Remember that the nations of the World were completely different then to today. In fact, this wooden exegesis (more eisegesis) of the text in question should require us to no longer recognise the existence of the US today, or indeed any of the independent European nations. Surely we should all be part of the Roman Empire ad the vast majority of us who are not pure Celts need to return to the north-western European mainland!.
Maybe a defence can be mounted for Trump. I can see a case for defending those who voted for him, especially where it was reluctant. However that is different to defending and advocating for the person himself. If there is a right defence then it isn’t found in the EN article.
[1] The phrase is particularly associated with John Major’s 1992-97 government.
Faithroots 