This editorial deserves national attention.
When an editorial makes the national news
STOP the presses! Extra, extra! Better yet in this case, Holy Moses! And other idiomatic expressions! The ink pumping through our hearts just went to our heads. And it’s making us dizzy. Did an American editorial just make national news? Even better than that, did an American editorial just make millions of people apoplectic? We scarcely know where to begin. Except maybe to say Hallelujah!
A few days ago, just before Christmas, the editors at Christianity Today wrote an editorial that people read.
And we’re not kidding. The first thing we must say is this: We’re jealous as hell.
An old editor from back in the day once described a newspaper as a multi-course meal: Sports is dessert. (Yes, you may eat dessert first.)
The funnies are the several glasses of adult beverages that make you giggle. The meat is on the front page. The veggies are in the local section.
But the editorial page, or at least the editorial column, has traditionally been the glazed beets of the meal.
You know, that particular dish isn’t something you’d normally put on your plate, you don’t know who would have gone through such trouble to make it, it doesn’t smell necessarily appetizing, but you hate to be rude so maybe you’ll give it a quick taste—aw, heck, it’s leaking onto the rest of the meal. When somebody at the table asks how you liked the editorials, you smile politely, nod, and say, “Yesssss.” Then change the subject.
Except this week, the glazed beets were the talk of the table.
An editorial in the magazine said President Trump should be removed from office. Or as it was put by editor Mark Galli: President Trump “has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.”
In addition: “That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties, but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”
Owweeee! They’re bringing in the big guns.
Agree or disagree, the editorial took a line. Which is what H.L. Mencken instructed editorialists to do. (For our thoughts on impeachment, we refer you to the three we’ve written in the last week.)
Such editorials warm a cold December day better’n hot chocolate. If for no other reason than because taking a line is so rare. The standard approach to editorial writing these days seems to be more like news analysis. That is, the editorialist starts off a standard edit with a snarky lede, explains the history of the problem for 20 column inches, then, as a kicker, adds in a piece of opinion designed not to offend anybody. (Abortion should be rare. Don’t use a gun in a crime. Attention should be paid.)
Sweet baby Jesus.
We don’t know when that started. Maybe about the time executives started calling the newspaper The Product. We suspect it has a lot to do with editorial boards steering writers to the middle of every road, no matter where it leads.
But in the last week, we in the editorializing world have been given new life. For an editorial has upset half the country. And is being talked about. Debated. Argued. There is a God. And not only that, the writers may even make a difference, too, if they somehow convince others that there doesn’t have to be lock-step in the church.
After the editorial was published, the president attacked. Fox News had a special report detailing the reasons why Christian leaders should support Donald Trump. A couple hundred evangelical movers and shakers of various import signed a letter criticizing the magazine. The editor responsible for the editorial was criticized as being “elite.”
Again, we’re jealous as hell.
IF THIS whole controversy—about an editorial!—proves one thing, it’s that the Christian vote is not monolithic and shouldn’t be taken for granted. There have always been political disputes among believers. A person isn’t less complex just because he’s baptized.
It’s also a reminder that Christians don’t have a list of Required Precepts that must be checked before they can join the club. Christians are people, too. They come in all shades of liberal and conservative, or in between or neither.
Once upon a time, there were liberal and conservative Republicans, liberal and conservative Democrats, and it wasn’t that long ago. And the country was a better place—because members of one party could talk to the members of the other. And find common ground. That’s how the government was able to work. As opposed to now, when it rarely does.
Just because the two major political parties in this country have veered to the extremes, where any disagreement is met with scorn and derision, that’s not necessarily the case, yet, in the church.
Thank heavens.