The Trump–Obama Post: Why Alyssa Childers' Response Reveals a Deeper Crisis

Cameron (00:01)

Hello and welcome to Thinking Out Loud. I'm your co-host, Cameron McAllister.

Nathan (00:04)

and I'm your co-host, Nathan Rittenhouse. In this episode, Cameron and I discuss some Christian responses to the images of the Obamas as apes that the president of the United States posted. That's a whole own story, but the Christian justification response, pushback feedback shows us something interesting about where we are as Christians in this cultural moment. Bear with us. This is tricky. We're trying to kind of parse this out in a way that is actually helpful for us as we grow spiritually and be obedient to the way in which Christ wants us to respond to our world.

If you appreciate the work that we're doing, you can like it, you can share it, you can subscribe to it, or you can support what we're doing financially at www.toltogether.com.

Cameron (00:07)

All right, that the, the post on truth social with, you know, it was an extended video from Donald Trump. And it was, I mean, the video itself is a conspiracy theory, but then toward the end, you have a racist depiction of the Obama's presented as monkeys calling back along long standing racist trope. a very, very loud response to this from. Well, was.

Nathan (00:32)

it was a bit delayed though because you had seen

it and then

Cameron (00:35)

Well happened

at the end of the movie. Well, at end of the video. Movie.

Nathan (00:38)

Yeah, but I'm

saying you mentioned it, I looked at it, and then like two or three days later is when it really hit the headline news. Yeah. But anyway, so it's been a week or so now?

Cameron (00:41)

Mm-hmm.

off. Yeah,

I think about a week. Yeah, so very strong responses from probably from most sides of the political aisle, actually. But there's one in particular I want to draw our attention to and that's from Alyssa Childers. Now what's interesting is you I countered this on this was on Facebook. I'm sure it was maybe on other social posts as well. She's responding to Russell Moore. So it's couched in

It's the framing device. is a response to Russell Moore. Russell Moore, yeah, so Russell Moore unequivocally condemned the post from Trump as despicable, as racist. And Alyssa Childers took issue with this. And I want to consider with you, Nathan, a little bit her response, because I think it should give us pause for thought. We want to think this through.

Nathan (01:16)

Yeah, so we're bringing this into the Christian world is is stuff here.

Well hang on, so we're using Alyssa here, but I think this is a common posture. she's helping us look into a window. This isn't an individual that we're like, hey, we're going after this one person. That's a broader way of thinking.

Cameron (01:44)

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

she's a spokesperson. And also she moves in some of the familiar circles with us in the evangelical world. Even though I don't know that Nathan and I would technically qualify as evangelicals, but maybe that's another story. let me read you, I'm going to give you the first paragraph. So here's, here's, and here's the quote. Look, I hated that Trump post too. Inexcusable. Even though it was apparently posted by mistake.

It's perfectly understandable that people would call the image racist. It seems that some are unaware of the long and horrible history of portraying black people as monkeys. Trump should have responded more sensitively, acknowledged that and apologized. All right. Well, I have a number of problems with the way this is framed in the first place. So let me lay out some of those issues that I have, Nathan. And then I'd like to get your response as well. We've, talked about, I mean, I read this.

I sent it to you. even was, I even composed some comments for the comment section and then promptly deleted them because I was, I was aware that this will be, this will not be helpful to me, but more importantly, it won't be helpful to anybody else. But I did want to think through this. So first of all, there is, there's, some ways this, this seems to be a, a marvel of misdirection and

or any downplaying here because I think this the post is obviously I mean, it's those some people not being aware of those racist tropes Okay, I find that hard to swallow Most people are very all too aware of that. That's a very common sad and dark cliche of American culture and it's it's very prevalent so that I find hard to deal with I also think that some of this wording is very carefully

chosen. So you got an inexcusable there. But then even though it was apparently posted by mistake. we have that's an important qualification, apparently posted by mistake. So we've got some downplaying happening here.

Nathan (04:05)

You mean it's inexcusable,

but here's the excuse?

Cameron (04:08)

Right. So inexcusable, then here, and then later on she goes down and she sort of in the comments, she said, she reframed it and she said, at best, this is sloppy. At worst it was left up as, you know, to be mocking. No, no, no, no, no. No. mean, there's that's, that's not actually the right way to frame it. So at best, this is a pretty wacky conspiracy theory being posted by the commander in chief. Again, it's not out of character for Trump.

Sadly, but at worst, no, it's not left up just to be mocking. It is actually a hate-filled racist post. That's the, that's the worst part. So there's, there's a lot of downplaying happening here. There's a lot of soft peddling happening here. And then after that, she does go on to the next paragraph starts with, with that said now, okay, now that I got this out of the way. And then she goes after Russell Moore for a lot of, lot of posts and it's pretty much.

character assassination after that point, you know, calling into question his character and his credibility. Cause remember she's responding to his, to his post initially condemning what Donald Trump said. So Nathan, before I kick it to you, part of where I want to go with this, and I want to try to think about this constructively, cause I'm aware that this will, this will step on toes, but it just seems to me, Nathan, that we're at a moment where the culture war paints us into some pretty

absurd positions sometimes. mean, yeah. How about the Super Bowl? Just, you know, for those, who are torn between, you know, I don't like Bad Bunny. I want a Mer- I want traditional family values. I want, you know, just goodness and light. So give me Kid Rock. Another case in point. All right, Nathan, let's hear from you.

Nathan (05:39)

Mm-hmm. We...

Well, yeah, thanks for setting that no I think you know in the in the in the just the sense of honesty I think when you look at the types of things that we see happening Or let's look at this. So let's say ⁓ That there was some weird corner of the world in which somebody Didn't know that portraying african-americans as apes Was racist we're not talking about 11 year olds. We're talking about the highest levels

Of the leadership of our country then you have the White House response. It's like it was part of a Lion King theme ⁓ Video okay, there aren't any apes in the Lion King ⁓ and the point of it was everybody bowing down to Trump And a statement about the election so even in the cut which which is why when I first saw it it wasn't There were no parts of it that made any like so that part of it was like yeah That's disappointing, but there weren't any other parts of it that had anything to do with reality either so

That's the dangers that we start dismissing things is like, okay, there it is. ⁓ But then what we're trending into, a couple of things here. So one is that, and we all have to be aware of this, is that when you publicly endorse people, then the consequences of their actions, you have to justify in order to maintain your own character. And so what starts to happen here is we're falling into a world in which the argument is, well,

Cameron (07:02)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (07:26)

My bad guy isn't as bad as your bad guy That's the ⁓ The line of I mean that would be the summary of the line of thinking here of like, okay, so I hate that Trump said this but compared to That it other data so the vast majority is the the alternative everything from vaccines to immigration Yes, the whole track record there

Cameron (07:49)

Yeah, was going say name some of the, yeah, yeah. So the, the, the vaccines, the mutilation of

the young is part of what she puts abortion. Yeah. Critical theory and filtrating. These are, this is later on in her post. Yeah.

Nathan (07:57)

Yep. So LGBT trans short. Yeah.

So, okay, but let's, so this is the challenge Cameron of when we start doing cultural war stuff is when you're in an actual war, the sides are so clearly defined that there isn't a middle ground. And this is the thing we have to watch because you will have people who dislike Trump to the point that they can't admit anything good that he's done. It's a total blinder. And then you will have people who love him to the point that anything he says or do does.

has to actually be good somehow and they can't admit that either. And this is a weird, well, let's just put, that is a dangerous spot to be in as a Christian to say on either direction here. So let's be equal opportunity offenders and include ourselves. We all have the tendency to do this, but in order to be people who are known to be responsible with the truth, we have to be able to point out good when we see it and we have to be able to point out evil when we see it and not confuse the two.

And in fact, think Jesus has some pretty hard words about confusing good and evil in his teaching. so this is the, this is the spot that I actually think thinking out loud and habits where we want to reserve the right to compliment in both directions and critique in both directions. When good and godly things happen and when stuff that's just deeply irresponsible and evil is happening as well. That this is, this is not about being aloof and it's not like, we're above and we're looking down on

Cameron (09:27)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (09:32)

No, it's not. It's a desire to accurately engage reality and talk about truth. And so this is the thing that I think we emotionally sense in some of these responses is, ⁓ you're with that said. And then we're talking about vaccines. ⁓ It's it's missing. It's it's it's you've picked a side in it and it's missing the objectivity that is necessary, I think, in order for actual growth. And I understand people are going to say we're naive. You have to pick a battle. It's all a power game.

Cameron (09:50)

Yeah, because you've picked your side.

Nathan (10:02)

I get that and I'm rejecting that.

Cameron (10:03)

Right.

Yeah, as am I. So let's walk through that for just a second, because that's important. yeah, it's all, it's all, you got to pick a side. It's all a power game. What's ironic here, Nathan, again, is in the past, the people in my Christian circles spoke vehemently against power games. This is what fell under the rubric of postmodernism. They would, you know, or deconstructionism. They would say, look at, or critical theory. And

Nathan (10:30)

Or critical theory. is is

critical theory when we're talking about everything is power

Cameron (10:36)

Yes, and it actually is when you press into some of the clear voices there, and there are some clearer writers within the critical theory spectrum. One would be Michel Foucault. This is in fact what he says. really the kind of the main culprit here who said this with real ferocity and eloquence was Friedrich Nietzsche, especially with his phrase, the will to power. And then other people have taken that and really built upon it. But the irony here is Nathan, you have more and more people

claiming with the best of intentions saying, well, essentially this is the case, so we do need to play the game.

Nathan (11:14)

But

this isn't just politics though, Cameron. This is, I asked you the question, who's the most unattractive megachurch leader?

You you say you start to you start to play with like and then just look at church here She's like well this guy's you know, maybe he has some skeletons in the closet, but he really is a great fundraiser for our church And it's

Cameron (11:35)

Yeah.

Well, there's a long standing kind of tradition, of course. again, our North American context speaks volumes here. This is where my dad will often point to a decisive turning point in American politics where visibility was huge and the optics mattered more. And so there you have JFK versus Richard Nixon. In the radio debates, Richard Nixon is the clear winner.

I mean, he's just coming out on top, but then when you see both of them, I mean, look at Kennedy. He's charismatic. He's good looking. He's just full of promise and he, he wins largely because of that kind of winning combination and that kind of, that showmanship as well. So yes, it's a big, it's a big piece of our landscape as well, but that doesn't make it right. I mean, so the other place I would go here, Nathan is also, so

Nathan (12:34)

Yeah, but that's not what we're talking

about here. We're saying when the optics don't look good, and then we come back around to justify the optics that don't look good. So, I mean, I'm with you in that it's a world in which the optics matter.

Cameron (12:46)

Well, if you, yeah,

sure. Well, but if you've bought into a culture war mindset and you want to avoid middle ground or no man's land, that's the, know, that's maybe not as politically correct now, no person's land these days, but no man's land was just that spot in between the battles, right? Where, where if everybody was, you know, you were being attacked from all sides, essentially.

And so it's unwise to be in no man's land, which is where we seem to be. But we would, I would say, I would say it differently, Nathan. would say we're not in, Christians are not in no man's land. Ultimately, Christians stand in the church and the church is not no man's land. It's more, it's answerable to, I mean, the church itself is, you know, a monarchy. We have a king and we answer to that king.

The church is of course, the tension that all Christians feel is that we're in the world but not of the world. But we are still ultimately answerable to Christ as our moral authority.

Nathan (13:58)

So true, but let's think about the Civil War. You have a farmer in eastern Maryland, has a field full of crops with a wooden fence around it and several cattle. The Civil War happens and the farmer and his family are not fighting in the war, but the army is going to march over his farm and eat all of his cows and grain and burn his fence post as firewood. He wasn't in the war, but the war certainly...

Cameron (14:25)

ravaged what he had and him.

Nathan (14:26)

ravished is and

so so this is the thing of the of the church being in the world is that you and because I think because I hear people say you don't get to choose whether or not this impacts you that's and that is absolutely true that's not at all what we're saying when we're saying we're not of the world no you're yeah your fences get burned either direction even if it's a friendly army you know it's two your goals

Cameron (14:37)

No, that's true, yep.

Well, Nathan, can I ask

you something here? Because you've been talking to me more and more and saying the part that everybody has to hang up with here is the willingness to suffer. And that comes with Christian territory. It's pretty foreign on North American shores. So I'm wondering if you could just expound on that a little bit here. It doesn't mean we're pushovers and it doesn't mean that we don't fight for a just cause in a certain manner of speaking, but the...

The rules of engagement are different for us and the weapons that we use are not the weapons of this world. So if you just lean into that for a second, that might be helpful.

Nathan (15:30)

Well, you know, one of the ways that this was jarred in my memory, was reading some of the reflections of the church in Nigeria and how they are theologically handling, talking about things literally being burned and people being killed. And it is a upfront chosen statement that they say, we are a people who suffer. That is part of their identity that helps them look at evil.

Cameron (15:39)

Hmm.

Nathan (15:57)

and not think that God isn't good. It's like, no, this is part of what we're signing up for when we... I don't think you would, you know, the apostle Paul would have... These are all the ways I've had the snot beat out of me. Who wants to join me? ⁓ It's baked in there. But then also, I was thinking about... I think there is an interest within elements of the church to say who has lived in this tension well. And there are two big ones in my mind. But the first one would be the Black church in the African-American...

church experience of not having political power and even to this day holding, think, a simultaneous kind of song of lament and exuberant joy in their worship and identity of recognizing and looking in their past, being thankful for progress that's being made. But there are tools that are baked into that that are good for us to know for those who haven't suffered because of their faith, is that if you ever need to, the resources are certainly there.

Cameron (16:27)

Absolutely, yeah.

Nathan (16:54)

in global Christian history, but even in strains of the American Christian experience that this is not abnormal and is possible. And there are times in which you can say either because we don't have access to the power or we reject the terms of the power that we would rather suffer than and that I recognize that's a big statement. And I'm not I'm not even talking about politics here. It's just posture in general.

Cameron (17:23)

Mm-hmm.

Nathan (17:23)

of

saying, you remember when Israel was, so they're under threat and they're going to go to Egypt to send, basically, hire mercenaries. And the prophets use the imagery of you slip and fall and you've reached out and a thorn. You know, and so there's a sense in which we lunge for the thing that's going to save us, but in doing so, our hand is pierced because we've

Cameron (17:43)

Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Nathan (17:52)

You you flee from the bear and meet a lion kind of ⁓ language in Amos when you're injustice there. We're not talking about something new. We're talking about things that have thousands of years of repeated biblical and Christian experience history of saying. So, so all that's it when we come back around and we know we named Alyssa Childers as a type of a way of thinking about this, it's not about her. It's a it's about a. ⁓

a cautionary tale, A, from the way in which we read scripture and understand the commands of Christ, but then second, in the secondary sense, because of using our God-given minds to look at the history of saying this is not a place in which you want to sink your hope ⁓ for the future.

Cameron (18:41)

We want to be able to tell the truth. And it's not easy to tell the truth, especially in a time of uncertainty, cultural transition, and upheaval. And so you mentioned, yeah, what some have called Trump derangement syndrome. I mean, it was heartening the other day. I was listening to an interview with David French, no fan of Donald Trump, but he had some good things to say about one or two things that Trump had done recently.

I mean, that was a statement and I mean, that was to his credit that he did so. Because again, if you've got a holistic and balanced view, you care about what's true and you tell the truth, but you also tell it even when it comes at a cost. And part of what makes me respond strongly to that post is the recognition that a lot of, you know, if for a certain segment of the Christian population,

speaking very clearly about condemn, well, condemning something that the president has done right now comes with a cost. So there's that factor and people are hesitant because of that. And then there's also the matter of sunk cost. You kind of mentioned this earlier, Nathan, but yeah, the psychology of sunk cost, if you've, if you've invested so much into this man, if you've championed him, it's, hard to, to say that out loud and make an admission when something has happened that is

Nathan (19:46)

Mm-hmm.

I, okay, but,

Cameron (20:08)

flagrantly and clearly and blatantly wrong. Well, part of this, let me just say one more thing that'll get me in some trouble, but good trouble, I think. The prophetic witness of the church matters here. Now, thank God that the church's prophetic witness doesn't stand or fall on the basis of our own statements. I I've made so many mistakes in that regard, and so have you, and so have We all have, but it does matter. people, when those outside the church, and I mean, you and I talked to them, Nathan.

Okay, there's no abstract remove here or those who have formerly been Christians and walked away, who knows where their journey will end. When they see something like this, they say, are you kidding me? Something that is so clearly wrong here and you can't even say this is wrong. Or if you do, you do it in such through this, sort of the one side of your mouth and then the other.

Nathan (20:59)

So let me.

Cameron (21:04)

But this guy who's calling it out, let me tell you about all the horrible things about this person. So yes, I have a big problem with that. I think we need to see less of that. And I think it's worth talking about it seriously. But I do think it is, is marring the prophetic witness of many Christians. It's certainly making our job when we're out there on university campuses or when we're talking, it's making it harder.

Nathan (21:28)

Yeah, but we also don't want I think that is a default We don't want to trend toward the ideas that are the easiest to defend in public We have to we have to go with the truth as we see it and that can happen in both directions I think most Christians if you ask them Cameron would not say hey, you know, we see Trump as any kind of ideal But he is the representative that is a brain about the changes that we have wanted to see happen

And you, and you get a sense that Trump sees himself in this way too. If you go through and listen to the, the recent national prayer breakfast, it's a 40 hour long Trump talking about all the great things he has done more for religion than any president ever in the history of the United States. Um, I mean, so these are the sentences he's using and he'll say, I did this and this, and we bombed here and we did this. And I know you guys can't endorse this because you're religious, but I can. And I know you like it. So I know you can't say anything.

Cameron (21:53)

Sure.

Nathan (22:23)

is almost set out loud part of like, well, you might think I'm a bad guy, but hey, we got to do this. And so there's a sense in which I think the good portion, so that's what I'm saying. Yeah, so my bad guy is not as bad as your bad guy of like, look, this is a mess. It's not great, but we got to go out here. And this is the guy who's going to help us kind of clean up the situation that we've inherited. So to be able to separate out.

Cameron (22:24)

Mm-hmm.

I'm your bad guy, in other words. Yeah.

Nathan (22:51)

the idolatry of a person from the vision of a movement and then seeing that person as the one who brings about the fulfillment of your political goals and dreams is a sense for me it's not a it's unfortunate that is in political terms but it's just a sense of misplaced hope ⁓ and to say what are the means and the mechanisms by which you're willing to see your vision enacted ⁓ is a useful question ⁓ along the way.

Cameron (23:15)

right? But political terms make sense.

political terms piece makes sense though because in one of the outworkings of secularism, and let's resist the urge to footnote secularism or let it die the death of a thousand qualifications by invoking Charles Taylor and all of his senses of secularism. I'm just going to say secularism right now. One of the outworkings of that at least is that we default to thinking that really politics is

politics takes the place of God in the sense that this is where stuff gets done. You want Supreme Court justices at the legislative level, laws of the land, all of that. Now, neither Nathan nor I are downplaying that or saying that those aren't important items. if they take the place of God, even in practice, practically speaking, that's a large problem.

Nathan (24:07)

But we're saying that it's complicated.

then it's not.

Cameron (24:17)

you're going to be led in you'll be led in idolatrous directions if that happens, because now you're looking to see, there are all sorts of scriptural examples. I mean, I think of, this was just preached at my church this last Sunday of King David and Nabal, where he makes a pretty grandiose request of Nabal. He has been protecting his men, but Nabal didn't ask him to do that, but he just says,

All right, now can you provide for my, I think it's 300, a delegation of like 300 people. You know, you've got all these sheep. you feed these 300 men? And Nabal says, get bent basically. And then David says, all right, I'm going to kill every, every single male in your household. I will not spare one of them. I'm just, it's going to be a bloodbath because you dishonored me. And if you look at what Nabal actually says to him, I he dishonored his

His name, he mocked him. Who is David? Who is son of Jesse? But then Abigail, his wife, intervenes and because she intervenes. But my point here is, she stays David's hand and a massacre, an unjust massacre is stopped. But part of the point I'm drawing here is just that David wanted to take matters into his own hands. And that's often.

That's where we're going to go. If God becomes an abstract reality for us or something that's just purely a purely private matter, know, reserved for prayer in the church, but everything else, the real stuff gets done in the real world here through politics and all the experts of this age. If you go down that road, it's very likely that you're going to get into a mindset where you say, well, we have to take matters into our own hands because after all, that's where you get into that mindset of,

Cameron and Nathan, you're both naive. I this is a culture war and you don't get to choose. What you have to choose is a side and it's tragic and it's painful and it's ugly sometimes, but we're realists. And my response to that would be that's not the biblical vision. The biblical vision is a comedy where there is a happy ending, regardless of what transpires here. Yes, there'll be suffering and there'll be pain. Yes, there's injustice and yes, we oppose it.

But we have to do so, we have Christian rules of engagement. We have to do so on Christ's terms. If we could do it on cultural terms, that's great. But if the cultural terms are wrong, we gotta stop.

Nathan (26:49)

Well, okay, skin-

But that doesn't mean that you're wishy-washy on the sanctity of life, of definitions of marriage. So I see a tendency here, Cameron, for us to think things that are deeply theologically rooted and that we would ⁓ hold to be ⁓ core beliefs of the Christian faith that are contrary to ⁓ a more progressive political order, for sure, don't fit in well there. But at the same time, our value of the sanctity of truth

Virtue also doesn't allow us to use other certain tools in order to achieve those goals at the same time so it I Fully recognize that it requires a crazy balancing act in this but it's the you know The illustration I used the other day a couple inches of snow We're on our way to church and our road hadn't been plowed yet. So shout out to the old ⁓ Toyota minivan so we're pushing a little snow as we were going and then we got to a spot where somebody had been driving

but they were driving in a truck whose wheels were farther apart than the wheels of our van. And so the easiest thing to do was to drive with one wheel in the rut that was ahead of us. But our van didn't fit nicely in the rut of the truck. And so you kind of had to either pick the left or the right side and drop one wheel down in that. And then we could, we can make good progress. And so the tendency there, I think is for the church to say,

Kind of the left and right are a little out of bounds on some categories for us But it is easier just to drop your wheel in one of these And cruise along that way rather than say, okay I'm just gonna fight the the sludge in the snow and drive down the middle here and so I am I am sympathetic to the desire to say we're gonna pick a rut and just drop drop, know our tires in there and roll and And there can be some value progress has made you get out to the plowed surface that way ⁓

But there are also going to be times when you have to pick and choose, hey, these ruts are now leading in a direction that we don't want to go. Do we still have the winter driving skills to cut fresh tracks in the snow on our own if we need to? And so that's what I want us to preserve as a church is to say, hey, you know what, if there's a rut or a groove or a thing, a part of culture or that's that's parallel to what it is that God is calling us to do, let's absolutely do it. But let's not lose the ability.

to drive outside of the ruts. Because very often the ruts that are laid down that aren't deeply theologically formed or aren't within the will of God are going to lead us in a direction that we don't want to go. And so it's a, this is a call for maintaining our ability to do the fresh track winter driving as a church and as Christians. That would be a disaster if we lose that ability.

Cameron (29:42)

Well said. Well, the hope here is as always, not to tell you what to think or draw any conclusions for you, but to help get the wheels turning and get this conversation moving. And we're aware that sometimes the topics are indeed fraught and contentious. But we hope that in the end, our hope is and our prayer is that this is constructive for you. So thanks for tuning in and sticking with us throughout this conversation. You've been listening to Thinking Out Loud.

A podcast where we think out loud about current events and Christian hope.