Christian Choice

The Atlantic does sometimes have fits of evenhandedness, but they are are a generally reliable Clinton-Gore liberal source. Thus, when they are writing about matters of faith, it is nearly always from a "what's a good liberal to do" POV. They are fine with hatred of conservatives, but say it nicely. Use your words, Trevor. No rage, please, that's not us.  It's okay to write about why other leftists are enraged and how you understand it, and how the real problem is conservatives complaining about liberal rage, but with practice you will learn that sneering and sarcasm are much more effective in persuading the people we care about.

So it's no surprise what American Christians Have A Choice is about. Peter Wehner is not a terrible guy or a milquetoast Christian. He thinks Trump is terrible but went third-party rather than vote for Hillary.  (I don't know what he did last time.) But notice how the Atlantic picks and chooses what they will publish of his.  He is useful to them because of what he publishes in other places, giving them street cred.  These are subtle games in publishing, done by professionals who know how to place ideas artfully, like museum curators.  If you are interested in the whole article rather than just this intro, the Atlantic is using this one as a Facebook ad at present, so you can click through from there. Maybe. I did, anyone. 

But the subheading gives it away: The faithful can still repair the damage they have wrought. I don't know what Wehner wrote under previous administrations.  He might well have written about what damage the faithful had wrought then as well.  But the Atlantic didn't. Carter and Mondale were not a crisis for American Christians, Reagan was.  Bill Clinton was somehow never a spiritual crisis for the Church.  After all, when he was caught in sin he got Tony Campolo to meet with him and declare what a changed man he was. And then he went multiple times to Epstein Island, and Epstein was a big Hillary contributor. But no crisis.

Bush 43 was a crisis to them, but not UCC Obama and his bigoted hate-filled pastor. Nor was Obama's Kwisatz Haderach persona, both Christian and Muslim (and Hindu - remember the Urdu poetry? But pointedly not Jewish.  Never Jewish), socialist and capitalist, elite and common man, traditionalist and radical...you get the idea. Biden's Catholic past troubled by no actual Catholicism was not a crisis, not even for Catholics, apparently.  McCain was only a spiritual problem while he was running against Obama, which was a crisis for evangelicals, remember? To refresh your memory, it was only a crisis in the other direction, as evangelicals wondered whether he was even worth the candle. 

So I don't object to Trump being considered a Christian crisis, I really don't. Even when I defend him I worry that he might be William Jennings Bryan or something. Yet I resent that nothing from the left on the national stage is considered a spiritual crisis in legacy media.  Look at the list of current prominent liberals and ask how they are not a crisis for Christians? The liberals do have some who are not a crisis. Fully granted. But so what? I'm not even counting Graham Platner's behavior, because he is not making his Christian calling and moral standing an issue beyond I'm just a regular Joe who thinks billionaires are evil an issue.  Oh wait, I take that back.  He also hates Jews.  That used to count for something. I am not even counting the corruption against "Thous shalt not steal*" nor lying against False Witness. I am only looking at the Rings of Power who are gathering lesser powers unto them and wondering why the Atlantic Christians only care about the dwarven rings, and not the Elvish or Mortal Men rings. 

*"Thou shall not kidnap" is almost a better translation, and is at least a serious undertone in that commandment.