Yesterday (December 19), Christianity Today's Editor-in chief, Mark Galli launched a bombshell into the midst of the current culture wars, planting his editorial flag firmly on the top of the Democrat's impeachment hill:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html?fbclid=IwAR0S0-Negk1nbkaIPnSAf4BFlTYt5cXThacnyWzqSoxzGmjFF-o_yl_BeUo
I don't know Mark Galli. As editor of the neo-evangelical publication Christianity Today (CT), I accept the brother's claims that he is a Christian, with but just a twinge of a hesitation. Personally, I had long ago abandoned CT for similar reasons that I don't give credence to Sojourners, Mother Jones, the Atlantic, The New Yorker, Slate, and the New York Times - in that they are all hopelessly and unapologetically leftist in their biases. While others have questioned Galli's motives or point to his longstanding Trump opposition - I prefer to avoid that direction with a brother in Christ. However, given the editorial leanings of his publication, I certainly do question his judgement. And based on his most recent opining, it appears to me that he has been an undiscerning consumer of MSNBC's opinion hosts and the DNC's latest talking points.
So while I do not know Mr. Galli, I do know this: the claims he made in Friday's shocking editorial are dubious, if not straight up untruthful. For starters, he needs to pull out a copy of Websters and look up the word "unambiguous". The facts behind the most recent Democrat attempt to undo the results of the 2016 election are anything but "unambiguous", as Galli claims in his piece. In fact, the whole procedure abandoned both past precedent and due process in a blind pursuit of a predetermined and politically motivated outcome. For anyone who actually listened to portions of the Intelligence and Judicuary Committee hearings, the so-called 'unambigueous' impeachment facts are notorious only for their absence. So much so that not one firsthand witness could be found to bolster the extravagant and ever-changing Democrat claims of extortion, bribery, or even quid pro quo. As a result, their case was left with conjecture, supposition, and opinion based primarily on hearsay, with a sprinkling of liberal law professors thrown in for good measure.
Despite everything President Trump's detractors threw up against the wall, nothing stuck, so to keep things on schedule, they were left to hastily cobble together just two bogus impeachment articles. The disingenuous obstruction of Congress article and a nebulous abuse of power charge - neither of which are actual, specific crimes, much less a high crime or misdeameanor.
Mr. Galli also disingenuously states that the President exhibited "profoundly immoral" motives (motives are something I am deliberately not speculating on in regards to Galli) to "harass and discredit" a political opponent. If Galli did not hear - along with the rest of the nation - the relevant portion of the Ukraine transcript, the Democrat's bribery, extortion, and quid pro quo charges were blown completely out of the water when Trump called their bluff and he publicly released it early on - even before chairman Schiff's show trial's basement hearings could begin. So much so that they were forced to misrepresent its contents to try to buttress their evidenceless and weak case. If anything there is "profoundly immoral", I suggest it is Galli's attempts to ascertain the motives of someone he does not know, on a subject he is not well informed, about a situation he is clearly misrepresenting.
Further, Galli seems to conveniently dismiss the fact that the president is duty bound to enforce anti-corruption laws domestically as well as in regards to Ukraine and morally obligated to ensure foreign aid tax monies are not used to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. If those politicians are foreigners, that means cooperating with Ukraine to root it out. And whether those politicians are vice presidents who are intending to run against him - or their flawed sons - they still do not get a grant of immunity.
Further, Galli's political philosophy lacks thoughtful consideration at best, and is utterly hypocritical at worst. We participate in a system where we almost always are presented with a binary choice in selecting our political representaves and president. In essence, since Jesus himself is not on the ticket, every election provides a series of choices between the lesser of two evils.
It is certainly not, as Galli posits, an affront to our creator to choose and support the candidate which best defends our Constitutional liberties to life, property, and freedom to worship (even when that person speaks using biting, sarcastic, and even embarrassingly hurtful language at times). In a display of hyperbolic absurdity, Galli goes even further when he makes the claim that our "loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments" itself is to be questioned if we don't throw in with Pelosi and the Democrats and support the president's removal by any means possible. Leaving us - I can only presume - the fiendish choice of either risking our very soul by lending support to Trump on the one hand or choosing the diabolical Democrat agenda of partial birth abortion and infanticide, unfettered homosexuality and sexual perversion in our schools, libraries, & society, radical environmental extremism, and the cherry on top of the ice cream - revisionist judges who will rewrite the Constitution to suit the latest whims of the far left.
Additionally, as someone I read has previously pointed out, CT does not hesitate to hold high the noble and remarkable achievements of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, despite his well known moral failings - and rightly so. But yet, it now claims it to be incumbent on today's evangelicals to ignore the unprecedented achievements in the protection of the preborn, religious liberty, and appointment of originalist judges - and instead excoriate and abandon President Trump because of his very similar moral failings. While such a stance might help us gain acceptance in secular socialist and post-modern circles, it will ultimately lead to our own (and countless children's) demise.
Finally, I want to quickly note that in an apparent attempt to give some credence to his ill-thought-out opinion, he several times invokes the name of the founder of his rudderless publication, the Rev. Billy Graham. Huge mistake there! Alas, this tactic almost immediately blew up in his face, when a clearly perturbed Franklin Graham fired back by not only postulating that his father would have been displeased with Galli's words, but also revealing for the first time that his father had actually voted for and had been a silent Trump supporter. The elder Graham believed "that Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation."
I am very disappointed in the publication which presumptuously calls itself Christianity Today. Opinions are one thing, but facts, they continue to be in short supply these days.
