A cautious response to 'defending Donald Trump'

A response to a previously-published en article by Rhys Laverty which was entitled "In Defence of Trump"

In October 1922, George Orwell stepped on board the SS Herefordshire, on his way to his new life as an Indian Imperial Policeman. It was to be a short career - he resigned in 1928 to commit himself to writing.

Yet it contained one formative moment. In his short essay ‘Shooting the Elephant’, Orwell recalls the exact day he realised how powerless his role actually was. A runner had been sent for him with this message: a runaway elephant was causing damage, could he come and shoot it? Orwell arrived on scene to find not a rampaging beast, but a docile creature munching on grass. He shot it nonetheless. Not to save property, or people, but because he didn't want to look like a fool in front of the native Burmese. He was officially there as the righteous deliverer of British imperial power and justice. In fact he was a lone marionette, at the mercy of the popular mood and pressures of his role.

There is a temptation, of course, to see President Trump as the great runaway elephant of international affairs. Over a week, tariffs might be announced and suspended, ideas of conquering foreign territories mulled over and discarded, constitutional law barged into and broken. And - after watching some videos on Youtube and reading a Substack article - a temptation for us to be our own Orwells, and reach for the (metaphorical!) elephant gun.

As Rhys Laverty points out in his article In defence of Donald Trump, we risk ending up like the Pharisees. Placing ourselves rather than the Lord as the ultimate arbiter of justice. After all, as evangelicals, we should unashamedly rejoice at Dobbs vs. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organisation. We should be mindful of the planks in our own eyes (the United Kingdom has, after all, also slashed overseas aid to potentially devastating effect). Even if we may not be completely happy at how it was done, God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

And yet, as the opening chapters of 1 Kings show, a well-governed, just state (1 Kings 3:16-28) is not by itself a righteous state (1 Kings 11). That’s not to say that the current American administration is directly comparable! Rather that it is ultimately motive, rather than action, that matters (Hebrews 11:14).

Rhys highlights three areas - gender, borders, and justice - where he believes the Trump Administration has done God’s work. While agreeing with his overarching point, I would suggest that too often the current American government follows Orwell’s sad example: of reaching for the immediate, emphatic solution rather than the thoughtful one.

Gender

To be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that men and women are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

There are though those born intersex, with both male and female sexual organs. They are in a firm minority, true, but that shouldn’t lead us to be dismissive of them. Ruth was a Moabite, who chose to be firmly in the minority among the massed people of Israel, and yet an ancestor of Christ (Matthew 1:5).

The relevant Executive Order here (EO 14168) makes only one reference to these people: ordering the withdrawal of a document on how to support intersex students. Intersex Americans may be a minority.

Is the best way to encourage people into a Christian society however to automatically place them beyond the (legislative) pale? EO 14168 was issued on Inauguration Day, 20th January. A pause, and consideration, may well have been preferable.

Borders

Regarding borders meanwhile, Rhys quotes Acts 17:26 about their importance: "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."

I would respond with Acts 17:27: "God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us."

Does freezing refugee programmes bringing Afghan Christians to Texas aid this? Or deporting an innocent Venezuelan man to a brutal El Salvadoran jail because of a thoughtless clerical error?

True, the available data does indeed suggest that under President Biden immigration into the United States increased markedly over and above the first Trump Administration. As the conservative Cato Institute argues though, one can attribute this in part to a substantial imbalance in labour demand between the United States and other markets. Even today, multiple key sectors of the US economy are indeed heavily dependent on undocumented labourers. Such dependence may not be Biblically sound or socio-economically justifiable.

But the socio-economic effects of withdrawing that labour supply should at least be thought through and prayerfully considered before decisive action is taken, surely?

And true, one may argue that a majority of polled Americans believe that immigration is too high, and that it is the Executive Branch’s responsibility to respond to that. I would point out though that a majority of polled Americans also believe that the US Federal Government should never declare an official religion. There are dangers in basing a case solely on what the public declares it wants. It has long been recognised in political theory that government by reductionist populism can be harmful too. As Orwell saw when he put aside his moral qualms out of fear of disapproval, and shot the elephant. Or as we see every Easter, when we recall Pilate bowing before the mob.

We Britons are as fallible and foolish as our American cousins after all: all imperfect creatures with His mercy and power keeping us on the righteous path as we await our Saviour’s return.

As such I absolutely agree with Rhys that we British evangelicals should avoid leaping to judgement. I would suggest though that we and our cousins "across the Pond" benefit from being each others’ watchful eyes and steady hands. We saw that at Munich on 14 February, when Vice-President Vance rightfully called out our Government on its treatment of Adam Smith-Connor, charged with standing privately and silently praying outside an abortion clinic.

Let’s lovingly and prayerfully accept correction from our American cousins, rejoicing in what we do faithfully, and praying for all who, like Orwell, might be tempted into rash decision-making, feeling trapped by the weight of expectations and the ensnarement of power.