Certain Christians on the right are correct to recognize that the moral discourse surrounding our politics is largely a cynical point-scoring exercise, an attempt to secure the moral high ground through discrediting opponents, rather than a serious, honest, and humble endeavour.

As such, the discourse is generally more concerned with power than with truth. Extracting admissions of guilt from your political opponents enables you to demand that they act in a chastened and deferential subjection to you as moral arbiter. Almost everyone is playing this game.
Many evangelical Christians are excessively nice people, whose form of faith is itself profoundly oriented around their scrupulosity and overactive consciences. They are also very naïve, and don't understand that they are perfect marks for this game. They can easily be gaslit.
Tell them that they are complicit in the worst atrocities and it is highly likely that they will accept your claims. Accusations of racism are especially powerful here, as given our nations' histories, they can bear genuine measures of guilt.
Their instinctive response, as nice, conformist, conflict averse, and obliging people, when faced with accusations by a person of colour is deference, affirmation, and contrition. Critical assessment of the very often largely unfounded accusations being made is suspended.
On the other hand, there are those who keenly feel the injustice and the power dynamics of the discourse, the way that others demand their deference through imputing guilt to them, often through the most tenuous associations, while acting with little regard for morals themselves.
To such people, the shamelessness, willful offensiveness, and unchastened pride of Donald Trump were appealing antibodies to the deep dysfunctionality and untruth of the prevailing discourse of the original guilt of whiteness, for instance.
Such persons will often refuse to confess or address any of the faults of their own side, lest they cede an inch of the moral high ground to the opposing political side. To them admitting guilt is weakness, the weakness they see in nice evangelicals who defer to any accuser.
Yet a healthy Christian moral discourse has truthful wrestling with our own guilt and the guilt of our 'sides' at its very heart. It recognizes that one of the titles of the devil is the Accuser and the way false guilt leads to bondage.
However, it also recognizes that Christ frees us from the tyranny and the fear of guilt in a way that honestly enables us to deal with its reality. Inherent in forgiveness is a truthful recounting of and reckoning with past sin that liberates us from the bondage of guilt.
Where guilt is reckoned by our accusers, it leads to bondage. Where guilt is denied, truth is not told and sin festers and grows. When our guilt is dealt with by God, we can approach the words of accusers very differently. We will also practice bringing our sins into the light.
Donald Trump offered an illusory form of deliverance from the accusers that tyrannize the uneasy Western conscience. The Christian response to Trump's vision is telling the truth about our sins and bringing our society and our movements into the light.
Yet this Christian approach also stands in opposition to the politics of power through guilt and deference that presents itself as his true alternative.

More from Politics

We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this.

The community’s response? Outrage.


Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.

When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?

Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.

Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.

We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.

It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.
I told you they’d bring this up


I was wondering why that tweet had so many stupid replies. And now I see


Seriously, this was “the night before.” If you’re at the march where they’re changing “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and soil,” you’re not a “very fine person.” Full stop.


There are 3 important moments in that transcript.

1.) When someone asked Trump about a statement *he had already made* about there being blame on “both sides,” he said the “fine people” line.


2. Trump does clarify! “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally “

Okay!

Then adds that there were “many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
My top 10 tweets of the year

A thread 👇

https://t.co/xj4js6shhy


https://t.co/b81zoW6u1d


https://t.co/1147it02zs


https://t.co/A7XCU5fC2m
1. Project 1742 (EcoHealth/DTRA)
Risks of bat-borne zoonotic diseases in Western Asia

Duration: 24/10/2018-23 /10/2019

Funding: $71,500
@dgaytandzhieva
https://t.co/680CdD8uug


2. Bat Virus Database
Access to the database is limited only to those scientists participating in our ‘Bats and Coronaviruses’ project
Our intention is to eventually open up this database to the larger scientific community
https://t.co/mPn7b9HM48


3. EcoHealth Alliance & DTRA Asking for Trouble
One Health research project focused on characterizing bat diversity, bat coronavirus diversity and the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in the region.
https://t.co/u6aUeWBGEN


4. Phelps, Olival, Epstein, Karesh - EcoHealth/DTRA


5, Methods and Expected Outcomes
(Unexpected Outcome = New Coronavirus Pandemic)