More on (a few) white evangelical conservatives trying to distance themselves from the embarrassment known as Donald Trump

The Christianity Today editorial supporting the Senate to convict Trump on impeachment charges got predictable pushback from the Christian Right. CT has followed up with a supportive piece by their president, Timothy Dalrymple (The Flag in the Whirlwind: An Update from CT’s President 12/22/2019)

It doesn't distance itself from the position of the earlier editorial, on which I commented here a few days ago.

But it does contain this somewhat puzzling qualification, noting that the impeachment editorial was signed by editor-in-chief Mark Galli:

CT does not have an editorial board. Editors publish under their own names. Yet Galli has stood in the trenches for men and women of faith for over three decades. He has been an outstanding editor in chief. While he does not speak for everyone in the ministry — our board and our staff hold a range of opinions - he carries the editorial voice of the magazine. We support CT’s editorial independence and believe it’s vital to our mission for the editor in chief to speak out on the issues of the day.

For whatever reason, CT does not formally call "the editorial voice of the magazine" an editorial board.

Aside from a Mad King Trump outburst on Twitter, some of the usual suspects did an open letter to CT, the signatories including noted Christian scholars Michele Bachmann, Gary Bauer, James "beat-the-kids" Dobson, Mike "the Huck" Huckabee, Cindy Jacobs, Robert "let's-have-a-civil-war" Jeffress, Eric Metaxas, and Ralph Reed. (Melissa Barnhart, Nearly 200 evangelical leaders slam Christianity Today for questioning their Christian witness Christian Post 12/22/2019)

Neither of the two CT pieces use the word "white" anywhere. But the problem they are addressing is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of white evangelical Christians. As Nathalie Baptiste notes (A Christian Magazine Called for Trump’s Removal. Top Evangelicals Say It’s A Liberal Plot. Mother Jones 12/20/2019):

White evangelicals have always been Trump’s most unwavering allies and voting base, but the impeachment question may have begun to splinter even that group. An October Public Religion Research Institute found that 99 percent of white evangelicals opposed impeachment. (In contrast to the 86 percent of Black Protestants who disapprove of the president.)

You can find stories written by reporters of major media outlets who venture out into the wilds outside the Beltway Village bubble and quote mysterious self-identified evangelicals out in the "heartland" explaining why they support Trump. It's only a mystery to people who somehow haven't managed to catch one of the basic facts about American politics, which is that there is a massive overlap between "self-identified white evangelicals" and "white people who really don't like black people (or Latinos, or gays, or immigrants, or wimmin) very much".

The Christian Post article linked above does mention someone criticizing Mark Galli for supposedly dissing those pore, picked-on white evangelicals that the Mean Libruls criticize just because they're so prejudiced against some many people. Why cain't them Libruls show some respect for POPs (people of prejudice), huh, answer me that!

Here's how Dalrymple dances around that particular (white) elephant in the room:

Out of love for Jesus and his church, not for political partisanship or intellectual elitism, this is why we feel compelled to say that the alliance of American evangelicalism with this presidency has wrought enormous damage to Christian witness. It has alienated many of our children and grandchildren. It has harmed African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American brothers and sisters. And it has undercut the efforts of countless missionaries who labor in the far fields of the Lord. While the Trump administration may be well regarded in some countries, in many more the perception of wholesale evangelical support for the administration has made toxic the reputation of the Bride of Christ.

Galli’s editorial focused on the impeachment, but it was clear the issues are deeper and broader. Reasonable people can differ when it comes to the flagrantly partisan impeachment process. But this is not merely about impeachment, or even merely about President Trump. He is not the sickness. He is a symptom of a sickness that began before him, which is the hyper-politicization of the American church. This is a danger for all of us, wherever we fall on the political spectrum. Jesus said we should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. With profound love and respect, we ask our brothers and sisters in Christ to consider whether they have given to Caesar what belongs only to God: their unconditional loyalty. [my emphasis]

But Dalrymple makes sure to not identify the Christian Right's political goals with the President they criticize because his a serious embarrassing, sleazy criminal:

The problem is not that we as evangelicals are associated with the Trump administration’s judicial appointments or its advocacy of life, family, and religious liberty. We are happy to celebrate the positive things the administration has accomplished. ...

Similarly, this is neither a criticism of the evangelical Trump voter nor an endorsement of the Democrats. The 2016 election confronted evangelical voters with an impossible dilemma: Vote for a pro-choice candidate whose policies would advance so much of what we oppose, or vote for an extravagantly immoral candidate who could well damage the standing of the republic and the witness of the church. Countless men and women we hold in the highest regard voted for President Trump, some wholeheartedly and some reluctantly. Friends we love and respect have also counseled and worked within the Trump administration. We believe they are doing their best to serve wisely in a fallen world.

Authoritarian atttudes toward women are bound up with the antiabortion position, and militarnt antiabortion groups in the United States have been a key element in spawning not only "mainstream" partisan fanaticism but also the hardcore, violent far-right brand. And the fundamentalist version of "faimily" (patriarchal, heteronormative, excessive sexual repression) and "religious liberty" (effectively treating conservative Christianity as a state religion) are very much part of the authoritarian, anti-democratic "sickness that began before" Trump. Pretending that Trump is somehow an anomaly for today's Republican Party is ducking the reality of the asyymmetric polarization with see in the radicalism of that party.

And, "Friends we love and respect have also counseled and worked within the Trump administration. We believe they are doing their best to serve wisely in a fallen world," applied to people who willingly serve in appointive positions in the Trump Administration is a mealy-mouthed version of "they were just following orders."