Category: Warren Throckmorton

Eric Metaxas has run into some opposition to his efforts to make God into a vote monitor. Last Wednesday he posted an op-ed in the WSJ which brought God to his side. Then this week, he has been tweeting up a storm about it (He deleted the first one sometime early on 10/18).

Evan McMullin is a good man, but in this election he is a fig-leaf, there to assuage the consciences of religious people. God is not fooled.

— Eric Metaxas (@ericmetaxas) October 16, 2016

God sees our hearts, including when we vote. Of course. There is forgiveness for mistakes. But pls consider what is at stake for our country
— Eric Metaxas (@ericmetaxas) October 16, 2016

Reaction hasn’t been bullish.
Today, Jonah Goldberg at NRO responded. Here’s the big finish:

And that is what I find so galling about Metaxas’ argument. I always thought that the role of conscience in Christianity is to treat it as something of great value and importance. Yes, as Catholics teach, it must be rightly formed through reason. A poorly formed conscience can lead to poor decisions. But conscience also speaks to us from a plateau above mere reason. In Metaxas’s formulation, conscience has been reduced to a kind of virtue-signaling vanity, or maybe the sin of pride. “Don’t listen to your conscience because God wants you to vote for Donald Trump” is a weird argument coming from anybody. But it is downright bizarre coming from the moral biographer of Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer.

I also find Metaxas’ argument galling.
Also today at the Weekly Standard, a more subdued response was offered by Virginia Hume who imagines what God is telling Metaxas:

God would never want us to seek a third option, no matter how far-fetched. He wouldn’t suggest we wake up and turn toward a good man, who also happens to be running. Turns out God is an old-style politico. “Those independent bids never work. Gotta suck it up,” He says, maybe in a Boston or Chicago accent. The only option God sees is supporting the political equivalent of putting something in the microwave just to see what happens.

Given that it is Metaxas, I am guessing his God has some variation of a New York accent.
Some tweeters of note have also weighed in.

Love @ericmetaxas, but this “God mandates that you vote for the sociopathic career leftist poisoning the well” routine is silly.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 17, 2016

and

Could a friend of @ericmetaxas counsel him that Tweeting self-righteously & censoriously, “God is not fooled,” makes him seem a…fool? https://t.co/NAfjfB10oZ
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) October 17, 2016

and

Evil. Evil. Good. Pick one. Work harder to make good a reality. That’s the moral choice without presuming to know God’s will, as you did. https://t.co/7A9vWS4Yy6

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) October 17, 2016

UPDATE: Eric Metaxas posted a clarification of his tweet concerning Evan McMullin on his Facebook page. Apparently, Metaxas responds to celebrity writers but blocks his lesser twitter followers for doing the same thing Jonah Goldberg did (see above for citation to Goldberg’s article).

The following article in @NRO by the estimable Jonah Goldberg misunderstands what I meant in my tweet — but that is more than half my fault because I can now see how the tweet might be confusing. I was making a perhaps obscure theological point having to do with the idea that fig leaves in Eden were used for a good reason, but ultimately they didn’t do the job. Not in God’s eyes. In other words, Adam and Eve knew they were naked, so they made aprons of fig leaves — but God made clear that was not sufficient. Blood needed to be shed. (Which, incidentally, prefigures Jesus’s death on the Cross.) So He supplied them with the skin of animals, innocent animals that were killed. So I OF COURSE support people following their consciences, but I’m implying — ineffectively, I realize now — that the fig leaves of voting for a third party candidate SEEM to do the job, but fail. And as in Eden, God is not fooled. But I realize this came across as though I was saying these people were TRYING to fool God. On some level Adam and Eve were, but I don’t think people voting for Evan MacMullen are, so my tweet really failed to do the job — as tweets seem rather often to fail — and I’m sorry about that. Also, using a fig leaf is a kind of fussy religious act that fails, because it implies that we can do something that we cannot. God has to do that something. And I was implying that religious people were voting for Evan MacMullin to feel good about themselves, which I do think in many cases is true. But that’s a far cry from them trying to fool God. I’m sure this has failed to explain my dumb tweet, but I thought I owed Jonah and all the others who were baffled by it some kind of explanation. My apologies for the confusion. Blesssings!

Metaxas still thinks McMullin voters are doing so to “feel good about themselves,” in other words for some kind of selfish reason. How insulting. My vote for McMullin will be cast because I think he is a good candidate and because I think we need alternatives to the two party system.
I keep trying to grasp how voting for president is in any way like Adam’s and Eve’s fig leaves. The only way I can get anywhere close is if Metaxas starts with the premise that voting for McMullin is some kind of “fussy” self-centered act which is morally inferior to his act of voting for Donald Trump. This explanation doesn’t clarify, it only confuses and offends. It makes his act righteous and mine a deficient moral act of self-deception.
Go back and try again.
UPDATE (10/18/16) – More rebuttal has come the way of Metaxas. First from David French at NRO:

When Metaxas votes for Trump, and when I write in my choice, we’ll both be voting for losing candidates. The difference is that my choice will be fit for the presidency and possess the character and temperament to lead the greatest nation in the world. His choice will not. I’ll be calling on Christians to support a candidate who possesses real integrity. He will not. He’s throwing away his vote on a corrupt, opportunistic demagogue. I am not.

And then comes Bonhoeffer scholar Charles Marsh with this catchy and provocative title: Eric Metaxas’ Bonhoeffer Delusions.

Likening the Third Reich to a Democratic administration would not be surprising from the obstreperous right-wing crusader Ann Coulter, who appears regularly on “The Eric Metaxas Show.” But Metaxas, who purports to be a winsome, irenic apologist for the Christian faith, in the fashion of his friends Tim Keller and Os Guinness, blindsided some evangelicals in proclaiming that a Hillary Clinton victory in November portends the vanquishing of the Republic—and that taking Bonhoeffer seriously in our time means voting for Donald Trump.

You must read the rest.

Yesterday, Eric Metaxas referred his dwindling Twitter followers to read an article comparing Donald Trump with Samson. Roughly, the narrative casts imperfect Trump as a modern day imperfect Samson from the Old Testament. According to the article, we should accept Trump as an imperfect man God can use in the same way God used Samson.
I submit that casting a vote in terms of God’s will is misguided both religiously and politically. I was reminded of Benjamin Rush’s exchange with Thomas Jefferson on a similar point just after Jefferson was first elected president. Below is an segment from my book with Michael Coulter on Jefferson which features Benjamin Rush.
From Getting Jefferson Right:

On August 22, 1800, Jefferson’s friend and fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, wrote to Jefferson asking for a clarification of his religious views. At their last meeting, Rush had extracted a promise from Jefferson to read William Paley’s book, A View of the Evidences of Christianity. In addition, Jefferson apparently promised to explain his “religious Creed.” As of that writing, Jefferson had not complied with the request.
Rush wrote:

You promised me when we parted, to read Paley’s last work, and to send me your religious Creed.–I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of Republicanism. Its Spirit is opposed, not only to the Splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many” of its precepts have for their Objects, republican liberty and equality, as well as simplicity , integrity and Economy in government. It is only necessary for Republicanism to ally itself to the christian Religion, to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world. I have lately heard that Lord Kaims became so firm a Beleiver in Christianity some years before he died, as to dispute with his former disciples in its favor. Such a mind as Kaims’ could only yeild to the strongest evidence, especially as his prejudices were on the other Side of the Question. Sir John Pringle had lived near 60 years in a State of indifference to the truth of the Christian Religion.–He devoted himself to the Study of the Scriptures in the evening of his life, and became a christian. It was remarkable that he became a decided Republican” at the same time. It is said this change in his political principles exposed him to the neglect of the Royal family, to whom he was Physician, and drove him from London, to end his days in his native Country (p 318) [144]

Apparently, by telling him of those who converted to Christianity later in life, Rush hoped to convince Jefferson that it was not too late for Jefferson to turn to orthodox Christianity. Jefferson wrote back on September 23, 1800 saying that time constraints had prevented him from honoring his pledge. Jefferson had been thinking about it and wanted to have adequate time to write a complete answer. To Rush, Jefferson wrote:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary , it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Diests, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum( 2) who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot showed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion , had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.– But enough of this. It is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies which have been preached or printed against me. [145]

Jefferson does not address Rush’s proselytizing but instead described his frustration with his critics and his opposition to establishment of Christianity “through the United States.” Rush then wrote back on October 6, 1800 in order to clarify his views on religion and the state.

I [Rush] agree with you [Jefferson] likewise in your wishes to keep religion and government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the World: “Cease from your political labors-your kingdom is not of this World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human Governments.” From this, it derives its preeminence over all the religions that ever have, or ever shall exist in the World. [146] (emphasis added)

Throckmorton, Warren; Coulter, Michael (2012-05-01). Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President (Kindle Locations 2267-2328). Kindle Edition.

Rush told Jefferson that St. Paul did not aim “to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne.” What this suggests to me is that these two founders did not believe Christianity needed help from a human leader. In the case of Bonhoeffer, he was trying to save lives and I believe he was right in that. However, to equate stopping Hitler with stopping Hillary, as Eric Metaxas regularly does, diminishes (unintentionally I believe) the Holocaust.
 

Election season just makes everybody a little silly. Like this:

What does Trump have to do with Samson? It goes way past the hair issue… https://t.co/dk1gg7Li6W

— Eric Metaxas (@ericmetaxas) October 16, 2016

Metaxas linked to an article that makes a case Trump is like Samson.

He doesn’t drink wine, he has a tendency to lie, he has a weakness for women and his hair is sort of a big deal. No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump.
I’m referring to Samson, God’s appointed judge over Israel.

I don’t know who wrote this but I suppose it could be a spoof. I am pretty sure Metaxas takes this as some kind of serious commentary.

According to Scripture, the kings of ancient Babylon and Persia – Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus – believed in God. One sinned mightily on numerous occasions; the other was “appointed” by God. Both served God’s purpose of preserving His people.
Of course, as disciples of Christ, we should all be striving to appoint leaders who are morally upright and sound in spirit. Our mission in life is to bring sinners to Jesus, so it would be nice to have a righteous ruler who loudly echoed our message. But what about Samson? He turned to the Lord in the closing moments of his life, but where was his godly and spiritual example – as judge over Israel – the other years of his life?
Donald Trump is a sinner.
Donald Trump is not perfect.
Donald Trump is not a great spiritual role model.
Check, check and check. Now let’s look at his policies:

Yes, now let’s look at his policies.
He wants to open up libel laws to make it easier to sue reporters
He wants to sharply limit free trade
He wants to penalize American companies who make things overseas and sell them in the U.S.
He has advocated torture and wants to change laws to allow torture.
He wants to create a deportation force to round up 11 million people costing the economy 300 billion.
He wants to lower tax rates on the wealthy without commensurate relief to middle income earners.
And so on…

Yesterday, Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas closed his Wall Street Journal op-ed supporting Donald Trump with this paragraph:

A vote for Donald Trump is not necessarily a vote for Donald Trump himself. It is a vote for those who will be affected by the results of this election. Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless.

This paraphrase — “Not to vote is to vote. God will not hold us guiltless” — of a quote Metaxas has incorrectly attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer reminded me that Metaxas and publisher Thomas Nelson have not answered several requests going back to early August to provide a citation or correct their attribution for the quote.  The popular quote — Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act — was attributed to Bonhoeffer on the back flap of Metaxas’ biography of the German  pastor published in 2010 but cannot be found in any of Bonhoeffer’s works. Since then Metaxas has included the quote in some of his Bonhoeffer resources and attributed it to Bonhoeffer in various public appearances.

Early on in my research of this quote, I contacted Metaxas via Twitter and his website to ask for a citation. He did not respond. I also asked a couple of mutual friends to ask Metaxas about the source of the quote. There was no response given to these people. I wrote publisher Thomas Nelson three times with no response. Given ethical principles in publishing, I believed that Metaxas and Thomas Nelson would either provide a source or issue a correction. However, that has not happened.

About corrections, the Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines state:

This means the editors should
1.2. strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.3. strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.4. have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.5. champion freedom of expression;
1.6. maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.7. preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.8. always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.  (emphasis added)

I think the last three principles are relevant to this situation. Even though the quote is a good one, it can’t be found in Bonhoeffer’s works. The integrity of the academic record is involved. Even though it might be better for business if a perception of perfection is offered to the public, publishers and authors should “always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.” Unless they can produce a citation from Bonhoeffer, a correction is needed.

So after weeks of seeking a source (others have as well) or correction, I continue to look for an ethical response from Metaxas and his publisher.

I just came across this open letter written to be signed by Liberty University students. This comes pretty close to a vote of non-confidence in Jerry Falwell, Jr.