“An extraordinary display of partisan scuffling”
President Donald Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress last night. This was not a State of the Union address. Rather, it followed the precedent set by President Reagan in 1981 and continued by every president since as they delivered speeches to Congress and the nation in the months after being inaugurated.
The one-hour, forty-minute address was the longest of its kind. Mr. Trump defended his policies, casting his first month in office as the most successful in history. He said he received a letter earlier in the day from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, saying he was ready to sign a proposed minerals deal between the two nations. And Mr. Trump said the mastermind of a 2021 bombing during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan had been detained.
However, seven minutes into the speech, Rep. Al Green (D., Texas) was escorted out of the chamber after rising from his seat and shouting at the president. Numerous other Democrats marched out of the chamber of their own accord; by the time the address was over, their side of the aisle was half empty.
Many Democratic women wore bright pink in a display of defiance. Some Democrats held up protest signs during the address. Others refused to attend; one hosted a Facebook Live town hall instead.
The Hill called Democrats’ actions “an extraordinary display of partisan scuffling even by the standards of the polarized modern era.”
The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions
If you support President Trump and his policies, you probably find these responses frustrating. If you agree with the Democrats, you may find their responses appropriate and even necessary.
We can wish for a system of governance that is less fraught with partisan conflict. But I have witnessed personally the alternatives available today and cannot recommend them to you.
I have traveled over the years in Cuba, China, and Russia. None see protests within their governments against their leaders, but this is because they are led by autocrats who severely punish dissent. By contrast, dissent and even chaos are common features when parliaments meet in the UK, Israel, and similar countries. This is because all (or at least most) of the viewpoints held in their nations are represented in their governments—often loudly.
Political opposition and division have been a part of American governance throughout our history. In the presidential election of 1800, for instance, John Adams’ camp warned that should Thomas Jefferson win the presidency, the US would become a nation where “murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will openly be taught and practiced.” Jefferson’s camp in turn called Adams a “gross hypocrite” and “one of the most egregious fools on the continent.”
The higher the stakes, the higher the emotions.
What has changed over the years is the degree to which politics have become a religion for many. At the same time church membership and identification with Christianity have declined, political issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage have become more urgent and polarizing. Social media has enabled many to find community not in a religious congregation but within “tribes” of political alliance and allegiance. Demonizing the other side has become a central strategy of political campaigns and engagement.
As Gerard Baker laments in the Wall Street Journal, traditional media has taken on this religious tenor, advancing partisan agendas as orthodoxies and marginalizing or canceling those who disagree. Rather than holding leaders and parties accountable as neutral arbiters of nonpartisan fairness, they have become “like prayer books for a believing congregation . . . tending to the emotional well-being of committed believers.”
When politics replace religion
When politics replace religion, here are some consequences:
- If our nation is to flourish, our leaders must be infallible, since we have no higher authority to trust.
- Our citizens must be infallible in their political choices and personal conduct, since we have no wisdom or accountability beyond our own.
- Those who disagree with us are by definition the enemies of what is right and good and must be opposed in any manner necessary.
- Vengeance and retribution are ensured when the other side inevitably regains power.
As a result, participatory governance fails, leading either to autocracy or civil war.
By contrast, Julian of Norwich (1342–c. 1416) testified: “God is the ground and the substance, the very essence of nature; God is the true father and mother of natures.” When we worship and serve him as our Lord and King, making our political aspirations and engagements a means to the end of loving our Lord and our neighbor (Matthew 22:37–39), here are some consequences:
- We know that our leaders are fallen and fallible, so we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:1–2) and support them (Romans 13:1–7). If we must choose, however, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).
- We know that citizens are fallen and fallible, so we hold each other accountable to biblical truth and morality with honesty, compassion, and humility (Ephesians 4:2, 15).
- Those who disagree with us are opponents rather than enemies, so we treat them with the respect we would wish from them (Matthew 7:12).
- Vengeance and retribution are rejected, forgiving as we have been forgiven by Christ (1 John 1:9).
As a result, participatory governance flourishes as the means by which we serve each other to the glory of God (cf. Acts 2:42–47; 4:32–37).
Abraham Lincoln famously warned, “As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” The choice is ours.
“Words which do not give the light of Christ”
As you respond to last night’s presidential address to Congress, will you view those with whom you disagree through the lens of religious charity or political division? Will your words and actions promote gracious unity or partisan rancor? Will they enhance your witness for Christ or drive people further from your faith?
Mother Teresa noted,
“Words which do not give the light of Christ increase the darkness.”
Which kind of “words” are more common in our culture?
Which kind will you share with the world today?
Quote for the day:
“Our forgiving love toward men is the evidence of God’s forgiving love in us.” —Andrew Murray
Our latest website articles:
Denison Forum
DAILY DEVOTIONS, NEWS AND INFORMATION 