Carl Trueman and Political Judgment
Evangelical Moral Discernment in the Age of Realignment
In his recent smash bestseller, the church historian Carl Trueman teaches that aesthetic judgment has clouded the modern mind. He makes a convincing case that rather than forming moral judgments based on enduring principles, we moderns tend to chase the truth out with the pitchfork of individual self-expression. We follow Friedrich Nietzsche and “speak of morality in terms of taste or aesthetics,” Trueman writes. When it comes to politics, however, aesthetic concerns above all seem to guide Trueman’s judgment.
Trueman’s latest First Things column “Trumpite Evangelicalism vs. Bidenist Catholicism?” is an unfortunate example of the problems that have plagued evangelical political analysis since at least 2016: uncharitable assessments, false moral equivalencies, third-way positioning that implicitly elevates one’s own moral status, and a general inability to offer Christians serious political guidance.
Trueman excoriates both Donald Trump and Joe Biden for “blasphemous” actions. While he criticizes Trump for “hawking of a Bible bound together with America’s founding documents,” Trueman contends that the worse action is President Biden’s desecration of Easter Sunday by promoting “Transgender Day of Visibility,” along with “dismissing anyone who disagrees” as “evil and hateful.” Biden “spits on all [that Christians] hold sacred,” Trueman further argues, calling him the leader of “a party that is legislating the very abolition of man and gloats about that in its election campaign.”
Though Trueman weighs these observations differently at the beginning of the piece, he concludes by writing that both are “nihilistic princes” who are unworthy of a Christian’s vote. A comparison of the two presidential hopefuls and the parties they represent, however, will show just how off-kilter this analysis is.
Though Trueman gives no specifics on the Trump-endorsed Bible, he is referring to the “God Bless the USA” Bible, which Trump promoted on Truth Social on Easter Sunday. This large print King James Version Bible was first published in 2021 by the songwriter Lee Greenwood. It also includes the chorus to Greenwood’s well-known anthem “God Bless the USA” and texts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Pledge of Allegiance. It’s the inclusion of these documents that leads Trueman to lambast Trump for “confusing the biblical canon with the writings of Jefferson.”
If incorporating commentary by civil rulers or documents from human sources desecrate the Bible, this poses a problem for many Bible translations. Civil magistrates throughout history have authorized the publication of new translations of Scripture to promote the public good of their respective nations. Per Chapter 23 of the original Westminster Confession of Faith, they viewed this as part of their duty to ensure that “the truth of God be kept pure and entire.”
King Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible of 1539, also known as the King’s Bible, to be used during services in the Church of England. The Charles XII Bible was the official Swedish translation from 1686 until 1917.
Of course, the most well-known Bible of all is the King James Version, whose original title page notes it was created “By his MAJESTY’S Special command.” The KJV’s preface speaks of King James I of England (as well as Queen Elizabeth I) using titles and scriptural allusions that are far beyond anything said about Trump by his most fervent admirers:
GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.”
Furthermore, establishing a bright-line distinction between political and non-political documents in Bibles is a bit more difficult than what Trueman lets on. Was the Synod of Dort, which was attended by leading English divines who were selected by King James (among delegates of other nations who were also chosen by their rulers), completely absent of political considerations? And what about the inclusion of the Canons of Dort in the ESV “Creeds and Confessions” Bible, among other versions? Should any text that comes only from the hand of man be included in the Bible? I don’t ask these questions to be pedantic, but being able to think through these sometimes opaque distinctions can be more challenging than it may first appear.
Additionally, Trueman’s invocation of Jefferson is interesting for another reason. America’s third president famously cut and pasted together a work containing only the moral teachings of Jesus drawn from the four Gospels. But shorn from this work were Christ’s claims to deity, along with his miracles and his Resurrection. There’s been no changing of the text of Scripture by Trump’s hand nor by anyone else associated with the “God Bless the USA” Bible.
To my mind, the Greenwood Bible is flawed not because it’s blasphemous but because it’s tacky and cheaply made, as Jackson Waters has pointed out.
This gets to the larger question of assessing the political choices that are before us. Having right judgment is about evaluating our current options and making a choice between them in light of principles and what is feasible given existing circumstances. It is rare that two things ever occupy the exact same moral plane. In this case, the differences couldn’t be more stark.
Trump’s penchant for endorsing poorly conceived ventures and slap-dash products, among other well-known flaws, is simply not close to being on the same moral level as the innumerable evils that are enthusiastically forwarded by the Biden administration and its courtiers. A quick review shows a gargantuan asymmetry between the two parties the 2024 hopefuls represent.
The Republican Party is often ineffective, plays on defense, picks the wrong fights, displays cowardice, and fights tooth and nail against the wishes of their base that’s supported their mostly middling batch of candidates for decades. This pales in comparison to the Democratic Party, which zealously stands for child mutilation, abortion-on-demand, lawlessness based on racial preference, and drag queens thrusting books containing porn in the faces of elementary school students.
Only one political party seeks, under the pretext of safeguarding “democracy,” to jail their chief political rival, bankrupting him and his family through weaponizing the law. Only one political party sees America as racist to its core and provides cover for those bent on tearing down the statues and names of every notable American. And only one party has undertaken an all-out assault on the Constitution and America’s political traditions for well over a century, aiming to fundamentally transform the country from a republican form of government to an oligarchy administered by those who have little love for America as it has been.
Volume upon volume could be written and still not contain every horror promoted by the modern Democratic Party. Quite simply, there is no moral equivalency between what Biden and Trump represent.
Trueman’s lack of political judgment is all the more odd considering his own scholarship. His lectures on Martin Luther are striking in their straightforward, no-nonsense look at Luther’s politics, including his tough stance regarding the German Peasants’ Revolt. But in Trueman’s evaluation of present-day political matters, that hard-nosed view melts away in favor of aesthetic revulsion at the person of Donald Trump.
Unfortunately, this is of a piece with the general strategies that the leaders of Big Eva have taken up for the past couple of decades, if not longer. They view politics through a churchly lens, preaching slogans that absolve themselves of responsibility while issuing blanket moral condemnations of their own people in secular outlets (actions which Trueman has rightly condemned). They have also assiduously avoided taking seriously the principles of political theology taught by their Reformed forefathers and applying them with prudence to secure the common good of Americans.
Trump, of course, likely doesn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification, much less what the Reformers taught on the subject of politics. But he does understand the necessities of retail politics, including how to appeal to constituencies, which puts him ahead of the field. To quote Nate Fischer, he also understands that we are currently “in an intense political struggle, against people who hate us and our way of life.” He intuitively grasps at a basic level what must be present for a civil order to have sustained success.
There is no secret why evangelicals en masse have thrown their lot in with Trump. He has publicly spoken of his affinity for them and has promised to protect their way of life. Trump is very open about the transactional nature of politics, clearly courting evangelicals in his typical straightforward style. This will lead to massive numbers of evangelicals voting for him again in 2024, because he delivers results for them and doesn’t despise them and what they hold dear. In choosing between a spiritualized, moralistic politics and one that will include receiving tangible benefits through sometimes rough-and-tumble means, most evangelicals will pick the latter every time.
As Aristotle taught, politics is the architectonic science—the queen of the sciences. It’s the most difficult thing in which to have success, even for those who study and practice it all their lives. For those who have no stomach for politics as it’s practiced in this world, the best advice I have is to stop writing about it altogether.
Image Credit: Unsplash