Here is a link to the Christianity Today editorial, "Trump Should Be Removed From Office," that has attracted so much attention. Reading through it, I get the impression that the author, Mark Galli, who is the editor of the magazine, gave birth after quite a long period of gestation: like maybe he had formed this opinion a while ago, and had begun writing the editorial in his head, making additions and subtractions (more additions), honing the argument while at the same time, out of prudential calculations, suppressing publication until, finally, his prudence was routed by Trump's conduct and he headed for the birthing room, where he delivered the baby after a brief labor. If that's how it was, he traveled the same road as the Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi's prudential concerns related to the effect of impeachment on the 2020 election. There are signs in the editorial that Christianity Today, and Galli, were thinking about their evangelical readership, which voted overwhelmingly for Trump, still overwhelmingly supports him, and probably does not subscribe to Christianity Today in order to read about politics, unless it's abortion politics. This likely explains the lingering backward gaze at the Clinton impeachment. The argument is that Christianity Today stood against immorality then and it's time to do it again. Yes, high time, I'd say, considering that the two cases are dissimilar and the current one a hundred times worse. But, speaking as an outsider, sexual extra-curriculars seem to have a strong hold on the evangelical imagination, and Galli would know better than I how to appeal to them. It seems to me that in his brief for impeachment he quite skillfully blends the president's private sins and public corruption. The former may be intended for Christianity Today subscribers, but it's the latter for which Trump is being impeached, and Galli, when he turns his attention in that direction, says much in very few words:
But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The President of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president's political opponents. This is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.
That first sentence is an admirably concise statement of the impeachment article pertaining to abuse of power. In the second sentence, he doesn't say what part of the Constitution Trump violated, and I think maybe it would have been better to assert that the president violated his oath of office—he did not "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States." The clause after the semicolon shows that the author is still, as I say, blending Trump's private and public misconduct.
I would never have expected to be so favorably impressed by an editorial in Christianity Today. If only a congressional Republican would now surprise me! It's just another Christmas season we're living through, however. Being surprised by McConnell or Graham would be a sign that the end of time was at hand.
Comments