Another Big Eva Name Backs Kamala Harris
Ray Ortlund’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is Exhibit A for why the current crop of evangelical elites desperately needs to be replaced. On Threads, the haven for center-left evangelicals who have been bullied off X, the founding pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville posted, “Never Trump. This Time Harris. Always Jesus.” After receiving numerous criticisms due to publicly backing the most radical leftist presidential ticket in American history, Ortlund deleted the post “because it was being misinterpreted.”
But there was no misinterpretation.
David French, along with other pro-Harris evangelicals, didn’t seem to have any trouble understanding what Ortlund had written. French wrote the following (a Star Wars reference, of course) in response to Ortlund: “This is the way.”
“The way of Jesus” apparently means supporting candidates who, when you get past the thin layer of manufactured “joy” and “optimism” engineered by campaign consultants, believe in positively ghoulish pro-abortion, pro-child mutilation, and pro-LGBTQ policies. “Love thy neighbor” means watching your country be transformed through the importation of people from other cultures, no matter who you vote for. And “the world is watching” means that you must brook no dissent from the leftist worldview without inviting the very real possibility of being doxxed or cancelled.
All of this, of course, is clearly against the ends of the civil realm as they are described in the Reformed tradition. As John Calvin taught in a sermon on 1 Corinthians, “[O]ur Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us.” The grace being delivered throughout the entire process of salvation does not destroy the things of nature, which is the domain of politics. God has charged civil magistrates with securing the common good of the people of a specific polity—that is, their safety, well-being, property, happiness, traditions and history, and the Christian religion.
Though the ground was prepared much earlier, the late 20th century lowest common denominator “Coalition Christianity” has successfully abolished almost any useful political categories and distinctions that Protestants once had to defend their way of life. A perfect example of the resulting evangelical mind is a post by Christian commentator Patrick K. Miller, who wrongly pitted watching the vice-presidential debate against college students gathering to worship, thinking that a category error was in fact biblical wisdom.
The same problem that confounds Miller also lies behind Ortlund’s endorsement of Harris. Replying to a Christian who was clearly astonished at his support of Harris, Ortlund argued that though abortion is a “horrible evil,” the “evils on the other side have risen to levels that jeopardize the foundational rule of law in our country.”
In a pithy response, John G. West of the Discovery Institute wondered where exactly Ortlund has been since Trump came on the scene. He rightly pointed out the myriad ways in which Trump has been the victim of a constant stream of attacks from those who swore an oath to uphold the rule of law in America: “Politically-motivated prosecutions of one’s electoral opponents, government-encouraged censorship of dissenting voices on social media, prosecutions of peaceful pro-life protestors, executive orders that have no basis in laws passed by Congress, the refusal to enforce laws already on the books.”
Such an inane argument from someone with the stature of Ortlund, who is also a Canon Theologian in the Anglican Church in North America, sums up the poverty of the evangelical elite mind when it comes to politics (which likely points to deep-seated theological issues as well). The same people who moralistically thunder against evangelical Trump voters for making political trade-offs make those exact same trade-offs—only they display disqualifying judgment in openly supporting candidates who stand for the mutilation of children, the killing of the unborn, and the razing of our country’s borders.
Can you imagine what any Reformer would say to a Christian who supports Harris and Walz? As Simon P. Kennedy wrote at American Reformer, the Reformers’ consensus on the duties of the magistrate were as follows: “The civil magistrate rules in the temporal kingdom with the ultimate goal of ordering the lives of their subjects to the highest good, which is worshiping and pleasing God.” While men like Calvin, Vermigli, Rutherford, and Davenant would certainly be put off at the person of Donald Trump, they’d see the potential of Harris and Walz winning the White House as a far worse judgment against America.
How exactly does a Harris/Walz ticket stack up against the Westminster Confession of Faith’s description of the godly magistrate? The magistrate, the WCF lays out, is to rule “for his own glory and the public good” through “the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.” By that measure, Harris and Walz are doing everything they can to order the lives of Americans by the teachings of the prince of this world.
Yet if Christians notice these patterns among their elites, they are tone-policed and quote-tweeted to oblivion. Then the same elites do the very leftist things that the people accused them of, showing that they’re exactly who the critics say they are: friends of the regime who are increasingly apologists for the Party of Death.
Ortlund’s endorsement certainly doesn’t mean his sons or anyone else affiliated with his ministry are automatically suspect (with one glaring exception for Russell Moore, the minister in residence at Immanuel Church). But it does make one wonder just what is being said behind closed doors at the highest echelons of evangelicalism. Is Ortlund representative of a contingent of evangelical elites who in fact vote for Democrats—and will be doing so again in the fall? As Megan Basham’s Shepherds for Sale demonstrates, it would not be a surprise if that number wasn’t insignificant.
This is the same Ray Ortlund, after all, who famously lauded the decline of “Bible Belt Religion” because it “made bad people worse” by supposedly churning out mostly cultural Christians—not true Christians. But as Brandon Meeks noted in welcome pushback at The American Conservative, screeds from those with a seat at the high table like Ortlund leave one “to draw the conclusion that those who dislike ‘Bible Belt Religion’ really just dislike the Bible Belt.”
“Urban Evangelistas love to rail against nominal religion, declaring with no small amount of glee, ‘Mayberry is not the New Jerusalem,’” Meeks writes. “To which an honest person is bound to say, ‘sure.’ But then again, Mayberry sure as hell ain’t Sodom and Gomorrah either.”
At its best, cultural Christianity adorns every aspect of a particular culture, guiding a people toward eternal, heavenly ends. But by itself, it cannot save souls. At Mere Orthodoxy, Stephen Wolfe reasonably noted that cultural Christianity “cannot bring about a spiritual effect; it cannot make true believers. It plays one role in the Christianʼs walk; it is not a sufficient role for spiritual life, and it was never meant to be sufficient.”
Why Ortlund is excited about the prospects of America becoming a pagan nation with increasing persecution of Christians is a mystery. While serious persecution may eventually come, Christians should do everything they can to prevent that situation from arising—not help the ruling class by psychologically preparing Christians in advance while doing nothing to stop it from happening. And if it does come, Christians are of course to be godly examples, possibly even martyrs for the faith. But this is not a situation Christians should actively pray for.
While there’s no biblical injunction that Christians must support Donald Trump, no Christian in good conscience can support Harris and Walz. Christians simply cannot back candidates who openly spit in the face of the clear teachings of orthodox Christianity, which are reflected in the natural world God made. Pastor Uri Brito rightly wrote in a devastating reply to Ortlund that “there isn’t a single rationale to play the Donatist game and support a candidate so outrageously proud of her disdain for truth.”
Ortlund’s endorsement of Harris/Walz is what happens when Reformed political theology is traded in for a paper-thin theology that has made its peace with leftism.
Too many evangelical leaders have learned their politics from the ways of the world. Fortunately, most average churchgoers have far better political instincts—and will be making reasonable political choices come November.
Image Credit: Unsplash
You hit the nail on the head in connecting Ortlund’s tweet to his previous lauding of Bible-Belt decline. He has in his tone a seeming disdain for his sheep. He seems annoyed by them, frustrated by them, and — most importantly — he seems frustrated by how the world views them. “If only they could just grow up, THEN the world would love Jesus…” (Exhibit A, the gaslighting he employs in that the fault lies with his interpreters rather than himself).
This is the common thinking of “Big Eva.” They paint themselves as shepherds who care about their flock, but consciously or not, over time they have grown to despise their flock. They are Pharisees who sit in their ivory towers lamenting the ignorance of their sheep, but alas… dare I say, they have lost their love for their sheep.
I say this because love here is not the driving force in play. Ortlund is not supporting Harris out of a love of anything, but rather out of a hatred of all-things Trump. He hates Trump, He hates the “sins” that Trump evokes and models. I would argue that every Harris-evangelical is in this camp. Hate drives their politics. Fear drives their reasoning. And this tracks given that love can not be the motivator when it’s tethered to an ideology that is inherently opposed to life and truth. Progressivism lacks the great creator/creature distinctive and thus has no true understanding of how to love. It must tear down. It must critique, but it cannot create.
For all of Trump’s weaknesses, for all the hate we might have for the Left, the conservative Right begins with the concept of love. And it is a love of the creator and out of that a love for His creation. It is a love of truth and a love of life and only out of that does it hate that which perverts those things.
Thank you for this article.
Rather than hitting the nail on the head, he hit his thumb with the hammer. And he did it because his eyes were only partly opened.
The legalization of elective abortion is definitely wrong and must be opposed. But prevalence of child mutilation as a response to gender dysphoria is grossly and ambiguously overstated. And what about the LGBT policies that simply demand for equality in society? Is that so bad?
What is the alternative to Harris? Is it Trump who inspired and contributed to the Jan 6 insurrection? Is it Trump who environmental regulations that put the health of Americans at risk? Is it Trump who denied the existence of climate change putting the future health of many people at risk? Is it Trump who, along with Putin, is responsible for a new nuclear arms race? Is it Trump who employs racist descriptions to refer to many people who emigrate here?
I can see why those who want Christian magistrates to rule the nation to support replacing our current form of government with authoritarian rule. But can Trump be described as a Christian magistrate? Most likely is that if we elect Trump, Russia becomes our future. Russia’s Putin throws enough bones out to the Orthodox Church to gain its support while running an oligarchy.
And so, just perhaps, it is the anti-life positions, mentioned above, along with anti-democracy positions held to by Trump that have caused some religiously conservative Christians to support Harris. As for me, I will reluctantly vote for Harris. How I wish that I didn’t need to vote for Harris to keep a power hungry candidate out of office.
Don’t forget to change your diaper, it’s obvious you’re scared!
Duke,
It is obvious that you’re not responding as a Christian.
How is it that so many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are willing vote for a person of Trump’s character and history? He did try to overthrow a legitimate election. He has spoken fondly about being a dictator and in the past has expressed jealousy for tyrannical leaders.
And if I am right, why aren’t you scared of the US becoming very much like what Russia is today?
Curt,
For one, this vote is not merely for one person, it is for 5000-plus people who are bringing an entire ideology and underlying metaphysic to Washington which will in turn reverberate throughout the nation. It matters what that ideology is not merely who the public leader of said ideology is.
For all of Trump’s issues and the Right’s issues (and they are many) they are at least tethered to an ideology that believes in truth and life. That can not be said for the Left. There is a massive fundamental difference between the two, for one, the Left does not acknowledge a Creator/Creation distinctive and that leads to a whole host of problems
William,
Denying Climate Change and striking down regulations designed to protect our water and airs being tethered to life? Embracing an economic system that, for the past few decades, has increased wealth and income disparity both between the economic classes and the races is tethered to life? Making unsubstantiated racist statements about those who are coming in from South of the border when many who are emigrating are trying to escape poverty and/or violence is being tethered to life?
If we want to see how much a candidate or group is tethered to life, we need to look at their actions and words. And so far, neither of the candidates from both major parties are promoting an ideology that is well tethered to life.
As for being tethered to the truth? Trump is tethered to the truth?
“The same people who moralistically thunder against evangelical Trump voters for making political trade-offs make those exact same trade-offs—only they display disqualifying judgment in openly supporting candidates who stand for the mutilation of children, the killing of the unborn, and the razing of our country’s borders.”
This captures something I have intuited for some time but haven’t been able to express well. It’s an excellent point.
GHH,
In another thread, you correctly challenged one person’s comments for its overstated claims. Transgenderism isn’t about the mutilation of children’s bodies. And there are guidelines for what medical procedures can occur at specific age ranges. Not that I agree with all of that, it is that your description of it is a grossly reductionistic.
Of course, if we talk about the harm that comes from allowing more pollutants to enter water supply and air or from an economic system that has, over the decades, increased the wealth and income disparity of both the economic classes and the races, or employing a racist approach to immigration, or renewing the nuclear arms race, then we are talking about the moral lapses of Trump’s past and future policies. And none of that includes Trump’s personal combination of narcissism and authoritarianism
Curt,
You seem unable to understand the difference between direct assaults to the dignity, life, and bodily integrity of human beings as opposed to the indirect side effects of certain activities. Aside from that, a lot of what you say assumes the truth of leftist views of economics, accusations of racism, nuclear arms, etc. that many of us reject as untrue. This is why we find it difficult to take you seriously. I won’t be replying to you again.
GHH,
What you seem to not fully understand are the causes for gender dysphoria and what all too often results from leaving it untreated.
As for the truth in the leftist positions on those issues, if you would like to discuss one or two of those issues, I would be more than happy to do so. But I am not assuming the leftist positions on those issues, I believe the evidence that has been presented regarding those issues.
Curt, I have to believe you are a troll. You post frequently on here, forgoing actual engagement with the article to simply play a poor-man’s devil’s advocate to other posters. Over and over again you gaslight others and are unable to hear their perspectives.
You clearly disagree with the overarching principles driving this website which raises the question why you continue to post here? It is not to learn, it is not listen, it to seemingly argue with everyone.
William,
On an average I post on 50% of the articles. I always address the articles in some way shape or form. For example, take my first comment on the above article. I agreed with Sabo on abortion but claimed that his comments on child mutilation were overstated. And while Sabo disagreed with French on his “support” for LGBT policies, I asked if those policies that demanded equality for the LGBT community were bad. And then while Sabo talks about Christian Magistrates, I did the same.
Of course Sabo asks what would Reformers, who lived during Christendom, say to those who support Harris and how they would support those whose ideology is not tethered to truth and life, I ask whether Trump was tethered to the truth. And I also said that we have to look at their actions and words before judging them.
And so how did that first comment not engage with the article?