Labels

The Pope and Donald Trump

Yesterday Twitter went completely nutso (as it tends to do) after Pope Francis supposedly accused Donald Trump of not being a Christian.  The Trump supporters went completely nutso (as they tend to do) and Mr. Trump himself fired off a few tweets after taking the stage to read a document about how completely nutso offended he was (as he tends to do).

Before we dissect this, it's important to put THE ENTIRETY of the Pope's comments in context.  Below is the question in full as well as Pope Francis' answer in full (I've pulled them from a Federalist post):
Phil Pullella, Reuters: Today, you spoke very eloquently about the problems of immigration. On the other side of the border, there is a very tough electoral battle. One of the candidates for the White House, Republican Donald Trump, in an interview recently said that you are a political man and he even said that you are a pawn, an instrument of the Mexican government for migration politics. Trump said that if he’s elected, he wants to build 2,500 kilometers of wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, separating families, etc. I would like to ask you, what do you think of these accusations against you and if a North American Catholic can vote for a person like this?
The response:
Pope Francis: Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as ‘animal politicus.’ At least I am a human person. As to whether I am a pawn, well, maybe, I don’t know. I’ll leave that up to your judgment and that of the people. And then, a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the Gospel. As far as what you said about whether I would advise to vote or not to vote, I am not going to get involved in that. I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that. We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.
Most folks have been spinning the Pope response as "Donald Trump 'is not a Christian.'"  This is, at best, complete ignorance, and, at worst, a complete lie.  I tend to think the supporters like Ann Coulter and half the folks at Breitbart.com are lying.  Many of Trump's Twitter-based supporters are probably just ignorant.  They, unfortunately, have believed everything the former have said and regurgitate it.

Some examples from Ms. Coulter:


Okay, so a few things.  At what point has Pope Francis become part of "establishment" Republicans in US politics?  This is how asinine the entire debate about "establishment" has become.  The term no longer means anything.  Rather, it's a pejorative against anyone you dislike.  That's it.  And Ms. Coulter launching this word at Pope Francis is proof of that.

The second tweet should indicate that Ms. Coulter is no longer a conservative.  A conservative doesn't demand more taxes, let alone more taxes on a church, let alone as retribution for disparaging words against the second most moderate candidate in the race (John Kasich, if you're wondering).  Ms. Coulter was once a conservative icon, willing to fight liberalism at every turn.  She now fights anything and anyone that isn't against immigration and even against those who are second generation immigrants.

The third and final tweet above, also demonstrating her abandonment of conservatism, attempts to say that Senator Marco Rubio would run the country according the Pope's wishes.  This disillusionment is largely why we never had a Catholic president until JFK.  It's an important aside to note that the "evangelical" Mr. Trump regular points to as his role model is Dr. Norman Vincent Peale.  At the time of the 1960 election, Dr. Peale signed a statement questioning the ability of a Catholic to separate his foreign policy from that of The Vatican.  (Add Catholicism to Islam among the religions Mr. Trump is scared of).  But back to the point, Ms. Coulter is trying to stir the same anti-Catholic sentiment up against Senator Rubio.  Yet, here is Senator Rubio's response as reported by the Tampa Bay Times:
"I'd like to see the Holy Father's full statement and the context of it before I comment fully," Rubio told reporters moments ago. "I'll just say this, there's no nation that is more compassionate on immigration than we are. We accept a million a people a year in the United States. Legally. Every year. Mexico doesn't do that. No other country in the world does that.

"But we're a soverign [sic] country and we have a right to control who comes in, when they come in and how they come in. Vatican City controls who comes in, when they come in and how they come in."

The Pope was responding to a question about Donald Trump's immigration policy and said building walls is "not Christian." But the remarks carried a broader note as other Republicans, including Rubio, have advocated for a security building up and tougher enforcement.
Rubio spoke before an event with Gov. Nikki Haley at a hotel here. He stressed he had not seen the pope's words in full.

"As a Roman Catholic, he is the head of the Church ... and I have tremendous respect and admiration for him. I haven't seen his statement. But I'm an elected official in the United States of America, in the federal government, and our No. 1 obligation is to keep people safe and our immigration system is a part of that."
This response alone starts to tip the scale for me from Senator Ted Cruz to Rubio.  When is the last time you heard a politician running for major office put on the spot like this respond by saying "I'd like to see the full statement and the context before I comment fully."  Our politics and media are obsessed with immediate responses.  It's partially the reason politics are so poisonous right now.  Folks think they are able to or should give immediate responses to a quote they know nothing about.  Then they realize that the quote was seriously out of context, but it's too late to pull back, because, heaven forbid they admit they were wrong.

Ms. Coulter was of course not the only one to make statement based on something other than reality.  Here's one particular Breitbart.com writer who has also given up on conservatism:

Here, this individual attempts to pass off that the Pope has no impact whatsoever on evangelicals.  This is wrong.  Obviously it's true that Pope Francis has no authority over any Protestant denomination, but that's different that saying he has no "affect" on them.  And certainly the SATs would reject this kind of analogy:
THE POPE : EVANGELICALS  : :  UZI : BANANA
It's so tiring when liberals attempt to educate Christians about The Bible, but I guess anti-immigration nationalists are trying to do it too, now.

To further prove that Pope Francis has, at the very least, some impact on evangelicals, here is a 2015 Christianity Today article from when Pope Francis visited The White House:
Like 45% of Americans, many evangelicals have ties to Catholicism—a spouse, a parent, perhaps even a grandparent who was once Catholic and left the fold for a Protestant version of Christianity.
Beyond familial ties, what had these evangelicals and other non-Catholics waiting in the wee hours of the morning was a chance to catch a glimpse of this historic meeting between America’s first African American president and the Roman Catholic Church’s first Latin American pope. They were also likely drawn by the way in which Pope Francis has embodied the gospel message, said Melissa Rogers, executive director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
 It continues:
Carey, the [National Association for Evangelical's] vice president of government relations, called Pope Francis an extraordinary leader.

“He’s brought new attention especially to the church’s calling to care for the most vulnerable, which is something that’s very important to us as well,” said Carey.

Evangelicals should listen to the pope’s message with the discernment of the Bereans from Acts 17, Carey said, and see if that message is in accord with the Scriptures.

“To the extent that he gains a new hearing for the gospel on the part of people who have maybe been alienated from the church, that’s a very positive thing,” he said.
Setting aside the significant influence of other Popes such as Pope John Paul II on evangelicals, Pope Francis in particular has been meaningful to evangelicals, especially on younger Christians.  A 2014 Relevant article titled, "A Pope for Protestants?" says:
In his first year as pope, Francis made international headlines time and again. He sought out a disfigured man in a crowd to lay hands on and pray with him. He made personal phone calls to reply to some letters, taking time to talk to a rape victim, a man whose brother was killed and more. He sent his personal emissary out into the streets of Rome to help those in need.

In an evangelical culture that has embraced social justice, international aid projects and even entrepreneurial initiatives such as buy-one-give-one businesses that help those in need, the pope’s passion for the poor struck a chord.
Near its conclusion, the writer reflects:
As evangelicals move ahead, I pray we would not be afraid to be led by a servant like Pope Francis. For if we cannot be led by a servant, how can we be led by Jesus?

Oftentimes I see myself less like Francis and more like Peter, refusing to accept the servant leadership of Jesus by trying to convince Him not to wash my feet. In a day where our churches grapple for power through money and numbers just as much as our governments, may we adopt the words of Christ from Matthew 20: “It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant…”
It's perfectly fine to reject Pope Francis' influence on your own life.  And there is nothing wrong with arguing against the level of impact he has had on American evangelicals.  But to say there is no impact at all is pure fantasy and/or wishful thinking.

All of this doesn't even address the Pope's actual words.  He said that "a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian."  As much as I don't like Donald Trump, I don't believe he "thinks only about building walls."  He has spoken about other issues.  So that subject shouldn't even apply to him.  Instead of saying "I don't think of only building walls" he freaked out.  Why such outrage?  Pope Francis must have hit a nerve.  Essentially he said, "If you are solely consumed with keeping people away, you do not know Christ."  It's far less the admonishment than Jesus gave Peter (the first Pope) when He called His disciple "Satan."  (Matthew 16:23).

So what was Mr. Trump's response?  His official statement in its entirety:
If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been President because this would not have happened. ISIS would have been eradicated unlike what is happening now with our all talk, no action politicians.

The Mexican government and its leadership has made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope, because they want to continue to rip off the United States, both on trade and at the border, and they understand I am totally wise to them. The Pope only heard one side of the story - he didn’t see the crime, the drug trafficking and the negative economic impact the current policies have on the United States. He doesn’t see how Mexican leadership is outsmarting President Obama and our leadership in every aspect of negotiation.

For a religious leader to question a person’s faith is disgraceful. I am proud to be a Christian and as President I will not allow Christianity to be consistently attacked and weakened, unlike what is happening now, with our current President. No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith. They are using the Pope as a pawn and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so, especially when so many lives are involved and when illegal immigration is so rampant.
I'm not going to bother with the first or second paragraph.  The first is ridiculous, but I don't think he's actually making a threat of not helping The Vatican if it were attacked, he's just being over-the-top as usual. The second is typical ramblings against Mexico.

In the third paragraph, he says "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith."

Back in October, Trump insinuated suspicion over Dr. Ben Carson's faith while speaking of his Presbyterian (PCUSA or PCA?) faith: "Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about."

A few weeks later, he doubled down, mocking Dr. Carson's conversion story saying "It doesn't happen that way."  Donald Trump, the theologian.

In December, Trump said, referring to Cruz, "not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba."

More recently (LAST WEEK), Trump tweeted, "How can Ted Cruz be an Evangelical Christian when he lies so much and is so dishonest?"  Now whether Cruz is lying or not is irrelevant for the moment, because Trump specifically said that a leader shouldn't question another man's faith.  He placed no caveats or clauses in with that statement, so, even if Cruz is lying, Trump went against his own charge.

As far as Mr. Trump's allegation that religious leaders specifically shouldn't question another's faith, The Bible is replete with warnings against false teachers and those who pretend to be Christian:
"I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites. I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked."  (Psalm 26:4-5)

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?  So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.  A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Thus you will recognize them by their fruits."  (Matthew 7:15-20)

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them."  (Romans 16:17)

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."  (Colossians 2:8)

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
Finally, lets set aside everything above, and assume Pope Francis specifically said that Donald Trump was not a Christian.  Do we truly want a president who, when whenever he's offended, reads a statement about himself from a podium condemning the offender even when its a world leader?  He talks so much about "working with people (even Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer).  How will someone so delicate that he freaks out OVER THE POPE handle folks like Putin, Assad, Jong-un, Castro, and Khamenei?

Mr. Trump, even if he was right on issues (which he's largely not), does not have the temperament to be president.  He's too thin-skinned.  He's too sensitive.  He gets all pissy like a love-scorned teenage girl.  Will his supporters ever see behind the mask?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment