My Email Exchange with Eric Metaxas

From: Jon Ward

Date: Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 5:32 PM

Subject: interview request

To: Eric Metaxas

hi Eric, I’m a journalist in Washington D.C. for Yahoo News. I’m writing a profile about you. I
read your Bonhoeffer book when it came out. I grew up in an evangelical church. My family and
I attend an evangelical church now.

I’ve wanted to write about your support for Trump for a while. In a sense, the mere fact of your
support for Trump is now old news. But I’ve tried to come up with questions that get at some of
the more substantive questions and issues that I think led some religious conservatives such as
yourself to support Trump, while others who feel just as strongly as you do about abortion and
religious liberty came to very different conclusions about supporting Trump.

I am happy to send you my questions over e-mail, because I think that could facilitate a better
back and forth if you decide you want to answer them. My questions are below. If you want to
just talk about it over the phone rather than write a long (or short) email, that’s fine as well.

I look forward to hearing back. Thanks — Jon

1. Do you still think of your support for Trump as something that is “painful” because he is
“odious” as you wrote in your now famous WSJ op-ed?

2. Do think of yourself as a culture warrior?

3. What do you think of this passage from an essay by Makoto Fujimara? Do you agree with his
statement that “culture is not a territory to be won”?

In John 12, it is written that “Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table.” A post-
resurrection reality is one of relaxed confidence. The religious authorities wanted to arrest
Lazarus; Lazarus could care less about that threat — remember he was dead, and now is alive.
We, too, can be just as confident; spiritually, we have today everything that Lazarus had after his
temporary resurrection — the knowledge of the power of our Savior and friend. We have even a
deeper knowledge, of the true and lasting resurrection of Christ to push beyond our fears. We
need to let the active, analytical Martha lead the way for the contemplative Mary, toward a
deeper unfolding of the Gospel for all of us, toward the confidence of Lazarus. In order to do
that, we need to lay down our weapons based on fear. Weapons of culture war will only lead to a
Darwinian victory, if that. Instead, let us become nurturers of lasting beauty, tending to our
culture with care, and with tears. Culture is not a territory to be won; it is instead a resource we
are called to steward. Culture that produced da Vinci’s The Last Supper, or Bach’s Goldberg
variations, all float about in the aroma of Mary’s nard, in that closed room in Bethany. That
aroma woos us to turn back to care for fragile emanations in the world.

4. In your 2012 prayer breakfast speech, you said: “Martin Luther King told the people on the
buses that you must not fight back, you must be willing to turn the other cheek, or get off the
bus. Branch Rickey told Jackie Robinson if you want to win the battle you need to do as Jesus
did and be strong enough to not fight back so your enemies will know that there is someone,
capital S,standing behind you, that it’s not just you.” You have said that a vote for Trump was a
vote on behalf of “the least of these.” When you say that, I believe you are thinking of abortion,
and that’s an intellectually coherent argument. But gay rights vs religious liberty loomed as large
for you and many other evangelicals, and on that issue, it’s pretty clearly a vote for Trump is a
vote for self-interest, which ignored all the innumerable ways he has demeaned, threatened and
bullied so many vulnerable people and groups, from women, to the disabled, to African-
Americans, to Hispanics, to undocumented immigrants, to Muslims, to gays, to journalists, to
refugees, and the list could go on.

• Examples:
• Demeaning black lives matter, and continuing as president by calling black NFL players
protesting police brutality “sons of bitches”
• The rise of Trump has emboldened white supremacy, and even rank and file Republicans
are as hostile as they’ve been in many years to the concerns of the African-american
community’s concerns about systemic injustice.
• His long record of ugly comments about Latinos, from rapists to the Curiel comments, to
his playing on nativism and xenophobia by making a wall a centerpiece of his candidacy
• His assaults on the free press are as significant a threat to the least of these as anything,
since the only thing standing between an abusive government and the most vulnerable,
and the freedom of all people really, is a free press.
• His constant insults against Muslims, and demonization of them. By contrast, John Inazu
told me that “the only way for ‘white evangelicals’ to pursue meaningful, long-term
cultural and legal support for religious liberty is by partnering effectively and
authentically with non-white Christians and non-Christians (including Muslims). In
ordinary times, that would be a tremendous challenge. Trump’s rhetoric makes it almost
impossible, especially when celebrity evangelicals like Metaxas back him so
enthusiastically and ignore the real harm and damage of the President’s words.”
• On foreign policy, one of the biggest trends of the Trump presidency has been a reduction
of American influence abroad — both intentionally by withdrawing in certain ways and
unintentionally because world leaders now feel they can’t rely on U.S. leadership —
 which certainly leaves far more people vulnerable than before.
• As Franklin Graham said: “He offended gays. He offended women. He offended the
military. He offended black people. He offended the Hispanic people. He offended
everybody!”

5. Justin Giboney is the head of the AND campaign. His background is in Democratic politics
and the African-American church, but he is conservative on abortion and gay marriage. He told
me the following: “It’s hard for me to believe that God wants us to get this christian centered
agenda through that space by any means necessary. It’s hard for me to believe is that it’s all
about just getting it done and not to worry about the details and how we got there. It’s better to
think about — in who I promote and what I endorse — am I reflecting what god would want? Of
course there’s strategy involve and you want to get wins. But I don’t think wins are the priority.
It’s witness. Where Metaxas and them went wrong is that wins and power became the priority. If
the objective is achieved and everything is just details that’s completely the wrong way. If the
spirit in which you do something is not right then it’s not right.” Do you disagree?

6. You wrote in your book “If You Can Keep It” about the need for virtuous citizens, and you
defined virtue as the willingness to sacrifice personal interests for the common good. This seems
central to how different people interpret Trump, and to why many white evangelical Trump
voters feel the need to defend him as president, because criticizing him feels like acknowledging
that voting for him was actually an act of self-preservation that hurt the rest of the country. What
do you think of that?

7. Have you engaged much with John Fea’s critique of your book? He makes a persuasive
argument that you have airbrushed the American founding into an airbrushed version that
exaggerates the role of Christianity as the sole source of virtue (not one of several), that
exaggerates the extent to which there was religious liberty at the founding (Seamus Hasson’s
“Right to Be Wrong” is best I’ve read on this topic), and treats the American experiment as more
of a miracle detached from anything before it than it was. Fea writes that America built on the
democratic principles at play in British life, which is something of a subtle point, but an
interesting one which tempers exuberance over American exceptionalism as some kind of
divinely ordered miracle. He also believes you give the Great Awakening too much credit for
how it influenced American politics. The greater point is that Fea thinks you make a common
mistake of many evangelicals, that of confusing America with the kingdom of God. This is a
complex and nuanced point. A firm rootedness in one’s citizenship in heaven should not produce
passivity or fatalism about one’s community or nation here on earth. But the critique of culture
warriors often is that they cling too tightly to worldly outcomes because the two categories
(kingdom of God and America) have become almost unintelligibly mixed or combined. Do you
think you have done this in any way?

8. Charles Marsh has also argued that your work on Bonhoeffer mischaracterized him. What’s
your opinion of his critique?

9. In April 2016, you said the following: “The church is meant to be the conscience of the state,
not to be in bed with the state, cozy with the state, but to be the conscience of the state.” Do you
think evangelicals like Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. have lived up to this? Have you?

__________________________________________

From: Eric Metaxas

Date: Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: interview request
To: Jon Ward
Jon — thanks for all of this. I’m not clear on what you mean by a “profile” of me. It sounds from
what you write that you are not inclined to think of me terribly favorably, so you can imagine
that I’d be a bit concerned about it. Can you tell me a bit more about what you have in mind, the
length, and where it will appear? Do we have friends in common whom you might want to
interview? If the angle is that I’ve sold my soul for a mess of political pottage you can imagine
that I’d be concerned. Thanks for being in touch. Eric

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: interview request
To: Eric Metaxas

Good morning Eric, thanks for writing back. As a side note, your mention of pottage reminds me
of this funny moment: https://goo.gl/iYNQTc

I’ve spoken to a number of your friends and acquaintances who have expressed how surprised
they were by your outspoken support for Trump. I’ve spoken to friends who voted for Trump
who were surprised and taken aback by how outspoken and unequivocal you were in your public
comment. I’m not mentioning names because some of these comments were off the record, and
some were in conversations that I need to seek permission to use. There are others who I’d like
to talk to who I have not yet, like Greg Thornbury and John Stonestreet.

And so that’s kind of the starting point for the story: surprise. The goal is to find out as much as
possible about why this surprise exists. Did you change? Did your friends change? Certainly the
environment changed, and people like David French — who is as much of a culture warrior as
yourself — reached very different political conclusions. What were the reasons for that?

Certainly some who I’ve talked to have speculated about pottage/porridge/stew. But even if there
is an incentive for you to toss red meat to a talk radio crowd, that explanation is unsatisfying to
me on its own because even if it plays a role — which is hard to know without looking inside
your soul — it doesn’t explain the whole picture. You clearly feel very deeply about abortion and
religious liberty. I understand, very well I think, these concerns. I have a Catholic convert sibling
who told me during the election that I had “blood on my hands” because I was not supporting
Trump, and while I had to do a little work internally not to hold that against her, I deeply respect
her conviction and her cause. And I know your wife works on this issue and sees it firsthand, and
that you share her passion for life. I’d love to hear you talk about that.

Abortion and judges were the dividing line for many. Others, like Justin Giboney and many other
people of Christian faith like him, don’t vote based only on abortion. So for many Christians, it
was troubling when you made those comments to Kathryn Jean Lopez about how Christ-
followers “must” vote for Trump.
And your comments about America sliding into “abyss” seem more aimed at the gay rights and
religious liberty debate than at abortion. I could be wrong. But I think on this issue there’s a real
challenge to your argument or your way of thinking that I think is laid out in my questions and in
Justin Giboney’s comments.

And then that brings us to how you think about America and what it is and how Christians
should think about our earthly kingdom in contrast to our heavenly kingdom. And that’s where
your books come into the equation, since they have received substantial criticism from some
very serious scholars and historians. If you have addressed any of these criticisms in a public
way, I’ve not seen it.

I hope that helps explain what I’m working on — Jon

__________________________________________

From: Eric Metaxas

Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: interview request
To: Jon Ward

Jon — sorry for the slow response. I was away with my wife and only now thinking this through a
bit more… Thanks for all you say below. I appreciate it. I’m working on answering the questions
you sent me and should have something in a few days. Hope that works with whatever deadline
you have on this piece. Blessings. Eric

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: interview request
To: Eric Metaxas

Thanks Eric. I’ll look for your email. Grace — Jon

__________________________________________

From: Eric Metaxas

Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 9:38 AM

Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas

To: Jon Ward

JON — AT LAST. Sorry it’s long, but sometimes I have too much coffee. Keep us in the loop on
what you think best. Blessings. Eric

I’ll respond to each question you’ve asked, but first let me say:

I think one of the saddest things about the period in history through which are living is that
we’ve come to a place where graciousness and empathy and trying to see the other side’s point
of view has fallen by the wayside, and in many cases has been forcibly hurled away, most
grievously by self-described Christians. It seems that some people have come to the view that
Trump is simply so irredeemably bad that all the previous rules must be flung from the window,
that anyone who would support him — whether in a more full-throated way like Robert Jeffress
or Jerry Falwell, Jr., both of whom I respect greatly, or in a more measured and let us say “tepid”
way, in which group I would put myself — must be demonized in no uncertain terms, must be
scorned as someone who has no principles and who can only be doing what he is doing because
he has made a naked calculation for his own self-interest. This is not only not true in most cases
of those I know who support Trump, but is also simply a dramatically uncharitable interpretation.
It represents an unprecedented scorched-earth policy toward anyone who hasn’t expressed utter
contempt for the current president, as though contempt can be the only reasonable and acceptable
response in civilized circles.

Where have we seen such no-holds-barred behavior in the past, on the part of Christians for
whom the idea of grace had previously been central? Ironically it has been when Christians have
felt that the End of All Things was nigh, that we were in a bare-knuckled brawl with the scaly
soldiers of hell, so that our opponents can be given no more charity than we would give a
vampire about to rise from his coffin. Strike hard with your hammer at the stake pointed at his
heart now or become like him yourself. So yes, at such times we have been willing to throw all
caution and charity to the wind because we have persuaded ourselves that we were truly dealing
with the forces of anti-Christ, and to do less than to wage all out war without regard for any
niceties would be like appeasing Hitler, or indeed, the devil himself.

Martin Luther, the subject of my last biography, fell into this trap most infamously, genuinely
believing the world’s end to be imminent because the Catholic Church had become anti-Christ
and the Muslim Turks were marching toward the heart of Christian Europe and Armageddon was
imminent. And so the very worst things he ever said — such as his horrific condemnation of the
Jews at the end of his life — came out of this mindset, that the time for patience and love were
over. This is a very human temptation, but it is among the ugliest of all temptations. Can Jesus’
injunction to love our enemies ever become passe? To those who seem to think so, anyone
unwilling to join their side and street fight with them against whatever bogeyman they’ve
imagined must have been bought and paid for by that bogeyman, and is therefore fair game.

• Do you still think of your support for Trump as something that is “painful” because he is
“odious” as you wrote in your now famous WSJ op-ed?

It is now only painful because I know that the gleeful demonization of anyone not sufficiently
Trump-hating has become the de riguer cliche of our time, the bullying billy club with which the
self-elected elect cudgel their foes. It is like shooting someone to advance pacifism, only less
effective.

• Do think of yourself as a culture warrior?

I don’t know what that terms means, and never have. I am a servant of Jesus Christ, a sinner
saved by grace, doing my best to humbly serve Him and His purposes with the time and energy
and resources I am given, and with the humbling knowledge that I am a sinner who may err and
sin in my efforts. I am also resigned to being misunderstood in my efforts, but take comfort in
knowing that such misunderstanding is a sizable part of the terms of my service. Labeling
someone with whom we disagree as a “culture-warrior” is too much like silencing someone’s
arguments by demonizing him as a racist or sexist bigot. When someone’s behavior disturbs us,
rather than try to get at his reasons for that behavior, we assume there can be none and demonize
him with a label.

• What do you think of this passage from an essay by Makoto Fujimara? Do you agree with his
statement that “culture is not a territory to be won”?

https://www.makotofujimura.com/writings/tears-for-fragile-emanations-lenten-reflection-
2014/ — In John 12, it is written that “Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at table.” A
post-resurrection reality is one of relaxed confidence. The religious authorities wanted to arrest
Lazarus; Lazarus could care less about that threat — remember he was dead, and now is alive.
We, too, can be just as confident; spiritually, we have today everything that Lazarus had after his
temporary resurrection — the knowledge of the power of our Savior and friend. We have even a
deeper knowledge, of the true and lasting resurrection of Christ to push beyond our fears. We
need to let the active, analytical Martha lead the way for the contemplative Mary, toward a
deeper unfolding of the Gospel for all of us, toward the confidence of Lazarus. In order to do
that, we need to lay down our weapons based on fear. Weapons of culture war will only lead to a
Darwinian victory, if that. Instead, let us become nurturers of lasting beauty, tending to our
culture with care, and with tears. Culture is not a territory to be won; it is instead a resource we
are called to steward. Culture that produced da Vinci’s The Last Supper, or Bach’s Goldberg
variations, all float about in the aroma of Mary’s nard, in that closed room in Bethany. That
aroma woos us to turn back to care for fragile emanations in the world.

I agree with every jot and tittle of what my wonderful friend Mako has written, save for the
startling grammatical boner of writing “could care less” when “couldn’t care less” was obviously
meant! And my wholehearted agreement with what Mako writes therefore constitutes the
suppurating irony of it all, that laying down one’s weapons often only means laying down one’s
weapons unless you are on the “right” side of the issue. Your using the quotation surely means
that you think I have in any “support” for this administration been unable to lay down my
weapons of cultural warfare, while it seems clear enough to me that those on your side of these
issues who have endeavored to flay me — and anyone of my beyond-the-pale political ilk — are
in fact wielding the weapons of cultural warfare, who cannot fathom that acting charitably
toward one’s opponents, or giving them the benefit of the doubt, and thereby doing to them as
you would have them do unto you, would be the wise and godly choice. It is as though such
opponents as myself must now be beneath such charity, and deserve only to be mocked and
attacked until they relent and see their unforgivable folly in supporting Der Fuhrer 2.0.

• In your 2012 prayer breakfast speech, you said: “Martin Luther King told the people on the
buses that you must not fight back, you must be willing to turn the other cheek, or get off the bus.
Branch Rickey told Jackie Robinson if you want to win the battle you need to do as Jesus did and
be strong enough to not fight back so your enemies will know that there is someone, capital
S,standing behind you, that it’s not just you.”

I wish Trump’s detractors who claim to be Christians would fight him in precisely this way. The
excrescences of rage we are seeing on the left — and the evangelical left’s countenancing of that
bitter rage and often their own participation in it — is not calculated to speak with the love of
Jesus to those with whom they disagree, but to demonize them and to rage against them until
they shut up and go away or can be driven away and out of “polite society”. The foul language
they regularly employ and their superlatively puerile genital-hatted fashion statements say
something about the real source of their activism. Dr. King would be disgusted by the vileness
and impotent fury of those daring to claim his mantle. Any student of history knows that he and
Jackie Robinson and Rosa Parks were people of tremendous and unimpeachable Christian
dignity. They were so extraordinarily self-possessed that this alone regularly gave their
opponents pause. They did not then and would not now identify with the obscene and often
extremely childish rantings of the mobs who flatter themselves by daring to imagine they follow
in that hallowed tradition. Those who rage today in the name of what they call “justice” are
wittingly or unwittingly the enemies of that tradition.

◦ You have said that a vote for Trump was a vote on behalf of “the least of these.” When you say
that, I believe you are thinking of abortion, and that’s an intellectually coherent argument. But
gay rights vs religious liberty loomed as large for you and many other evangelicals, and on that
issue, it’s pretty clearly a vote for Trump is a vote for self-interest, which ignored all the
innumerable ways he has demeaned, threatened and bullied so many vulnerable people and
groups, from women, to the disabled, to African-Americans, to Hispanics, to undocumented
immigrants, to Muslims, to gays, to journalists, to refugees, and the list could go on.

To say the concern for religious liberty expressed in voting for Trump was “pretty clearly…. a
vote for self-interest” is breathtaking. Can you really be unwilling to countenance even the
possibility of your own self-interest or the self-interest of those on your political side? For any
introspective Christian the temptation toward self-interest ought to be something that can always
be seen as possible and to be guarded against. Are many how vocally denounce Trump not
reaping the benefits of appearing progressive to people they wish to impress or whose favor they
wish to curry? Does their political stance make them feel morally superior to those they are
denouncing? Of course that has more in common with Pharisaism than actual faith in Jesus.

Furthermore you are actually mistaken in denouncing my concern and the concern of so many
others on this score as self-interest. The religious liberty that was so important to the founders
and to every American who understands it is something that benefits every single American,
including atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Universalists, and Episcopalians. How can it be about
Christians and self-interest? This is not about returning to a predominant ty white white-picket
fence America of previous decades but about returning to the very principles that enable us to
embrace diversity! Religious Liberty is a principle of our Founding and at the heart of our
freedoms, so to scorn it as the battle-cry of some backward political group is a monstrous
misreading of history, one that is helping to unravel the very core of all our freedoms.

On the subject of how Trump has demeaned his own enemies I must say three things. First, I
disagree with the idea you and so many others hold that Trump has in all these cases you
mention demeaned these groups. In some cases he simply has not done that. So you are not only
mistaken in this observation but seem unwilling to see how you might be mistaken, as though
this is a crucial and central narrative that cannot be questioned or even reconsidered. Yes, some
of the things he has said indeed have been wrong, plain and simple, but others have been taken
out of context and misquoted and misunderstood so often that no one anymore bothers to
question whether these incidents or statements have become anything more than a club with
which to beat his supporters. In those rare cases where he has apologized, his apologies have not
been accepted, which is another subject, and says more about his detractors than about him.

Second, any time Trump has actually demeaned anyone or hit back in unseemly ways, I certainly
do denounce it, usually privately and sometimes publicly, but always. This is a view I and any
follower of Jesus can hardy help but take, and the idea that any American could vote for
someone without finding some of that candidate’s actions wrong is simplistic to the point of
incredible. Identifying all Trump supporters as supporting every one of his views or mistakes or
sins is simply another way to demonize these people, hoping they will grow so disheartened with
this unfair characterization that they will cease to support him. But it has only had the opposite
effect of angering them and increasing their support of him, despite his failings. The injustice of
this and other political tactics like it has only further driven them into his arms.

Third, you seem not to imagine how someone could disagree with Trump’s behavior on any
score unless one volubly and often voices that disagreement. The insistence that Christ-followers
harrumph their every disapproval of Trump on twitter — and even within a certain time-frame —
 strikes me as not very different from Germans being expected to say “Heil Hitler!” sufficiently
loudly and often, so as to keep at bay the baleful idea that they might not be on board with the
National Socialist project after all. A free society does not demand such constant expressions of
fealty and when anti-Trump Christians demand them from other Christians it is no less ugly than
when Joseph McCarthy’s apologists demanded them. To say it again, free societies do not
demand such things of a free people, and to the extent that anyone demands them or even expects
them, they are contributing to the movement away from freedom and toward ideological slavery.

▪ Examples:

▪ Demeaning black lives matter, and continuing as president by calling black NFL players
protesting police brutality “sons of bitches”.

▪ The rise of Trump has emboldened white supremacy, and even rank and file Republicans are as
hostile as they’ve been in many years to the concerns of the African-american community’s
concerns about systemic injustice.
▪ His long record of ugly comments about Latinos, from rapists to the Curiel comments, to his
playing on nativism and xenophobia by making a wall a centerpiece of his candidacy

▪ His assaults on the free press are as significant a threat to the least of these as anything, since
the only thing standing between an abusive government and the most vulnerable, and the
freedom of all people really, is a free press.

I believe that most of the above “evidence” or “examples” are fatally strained and tainted with
subjectivity and bias. I could take issue with every single example, but both of us would grow
fatigued, and others have tried to clarify these things before, to no avail. Nor do I think those
who hold your views on this subject are terribly open to being persuaded that Trump is anything
other than a monster who is so monstrous that he frees you from worrying about niceties and
nuance. I think this is at the heart of the misunderstandings about him, that he fits too well into
the narrative and role set out for him, so getting into the proverbial weeds of things is never
worth the trouble.

But let me at least touch on one of these issues you raise. The idea that it is this president who is
the enemy of a free American press strikes as very odd — if not risible — all those who have
observed the press lurch ever farther away from objective journalism. They have lately embraced
what looks like a damn-the-torpedoes effort to rescue the American people from “All the news
that’s fit to print” because they feel that many Americans are too uneducated or too gullible to
properly understand all that confusing news in its raw form. This is patronizing and
fundamentally un-American, so no one should wonder that this president and those who have
supported him are amazed at the irony of the claim that he is the problem with regard to a free
press and not the journalists who have abrogated their journalistic duties to report the facts as
objectively as possible. The wild advocacy adopted by such previously mostly objective sources
of news as CNN and NBC is among the most dramatic of our departures from a healthy cultural
norm and the fact that most of these former news sources are benefiting financially in
subscriptions and clicks is the strongest proof that the price they are paying for these brave and
principled stands is in fact non-existent. It is they who have sold their souls for self-interest, for
the approval of their peers and for increased profits both. That some of them think they are doing
good and noble things is besides the point. Even totalitarian dictators and career criminals rarely
think they are doing actual harm.

▪ His constant insults against Muslims, and demonization of them. By contrast, John Inazu told
me that “the only way for ‘white evangelicals’ to pursue meaningful, long-term cultural and
legal support for religious liberty is by partnering effectively and authentically with non-white
Christians and non-Christians (including Muslims). In ordinary times, that would be a
tremendous challenge. Trump’s rhetoric makes it almost impossible, especially when celebrity
evangelicals like Metaxas back him so enthusiastically and ignore the real harm and damage of
the President’s words.”

First of all the notion that I have backed Trump “so enthusiastically” is really absurd. I have been
extremely measured in my support of him, but in the cacophony of our current cultural
maelstrom, no one has time for anything other than “love him” or “hate him.” This is a big part
of our problem in America today. He is the president of the United States. We used to respect
that office sufficiently that even serial adulterers who continued their sins inside the Oval Office
were accorded some respect. I remember when President Clinton walked into the National Prayer
Breakfast just days after the superlative foulness of his sexually using an intern had exploded all
over the news. The conservative evangelicals in that room, myself included, applauded the office
of the presidency when he entered because it was the right and the American thing to do, not
because we thought the man occupying that office was anything but vile. Fathers of 22-year-old
young women even somehow managed to refrain from hurling glassware at the swollen target
that was his head. Such measures of restraint and general decorum can go a long way toward
keeping things moving in the right direction in a divided culture; but today if you don’t boo and
hiss and throw things, you are accused of being an unthinking zealot who heartily approves of
the worst behavior of the man you are not physically attacking. I reject this utterly and wish
people like John Inazu would do the same and match his descriptions to the facts.

But to the issue of Islam. Most Americans in what the Beltway and Manhattan elites think of as
fly-over country are in fact reasonably educated and informed, despite the unAmerican
caricatures of them by those elites. So they see what has happened throughout Europe, that
craven political leaders have sold out their proper constituencies for the approval of other
cultural elites, most of whom do not care a fig for the working class men and women they were
elected to represent, and who usually have disdain for them, especially if those men and women
are of the white European “Christian” varieties whom they see as being part of the problem.
This, of course, is the new and accepted tribalism and xenophobia, masquerading as the enemy
of tribalism and xenophobia. Christians know that Satan always come as an angel of light, and
need never be caught unawares, but neither must we be caught sitting our hands and allowing
such “angels”to have their way. Standing against the Islamization of Europe or America is an
example of Christians caring for “the least of these,” as caring for those enslaved in the false
ideologues of Islam, and most notably the women in that culture, who are doubly enslaved. That
the cultural elites and progressives scorn these vital efforts as “demonizing Muslims” is painful,
but not as painful as standing by and allowing real people to suffer. One does what one must.

▪ On foreign policy, one of the biggest trends of the Trump presidency has been a reduction of
American influence abroad — both intentionally by withdrawing in certain ways and
unintentionally because world leaders now feel they can’t rely on U.S. leadership — which
certainly leaves far more people vulnerable than before.

This is a partisan and short-viewed take on the situation. I believe you are inserting your own
views and fears into the equation more than you are accurately perceiving how other world
leaders feel about this president. Time will tell how trustworthy this administration is with regard
to what it says and how it leads on the world stage. Have we forgotten how presidents Carter and
Bush Sr. and Clinton unconscionably betrayed those who looked to us as allies? A short memory
cannot serve the causes of history. Bush Sr’s allowing Saddam Hussein to crush the Kurds and
Clinton’s failure of leadership in the Rwandan genocide are two of the blackest marks in
American presidential history. Your focus only on the sins of this administration seems like a
bias that cannot be overcome by my arguments.

▪ As Franklin Graham said: “He offended gays. He offended women. He offended the military.
He offended black people. He offended the Hispanic people. He offended everybody!”
To offend someone is not the same as doing an injustice to them. It is possible that someone
could be trying to help and in so doing could speak in a way that we find wrong or at least
uncharitable or out of step with how one is supposed to speak. What Rev. Graham is saying is
not that Trump is wrong in what he said but that he has been perceived as wrong by certain
groups, by many groups. We need to take that perception seriously, but just how seriously is the
larger question. Are we not living in a time when everyone is far too easily offended, so much so
that we are taking our eyes off what actually matters, off actually solving the real problems of
people rather than giving politically correct lip service to those problems?

• Justin Giboney is the head of the AND campaign. His background is in Democratic politics and
the African-American church, but he is conservative on abortion and gay marriage. He told me
the following: “It’s hard for me to believe that God wants us to get this christian centered
agenda through that space by any means necessary. It’s hard for me to believe is that it’s all
about just getting it done and not to worry about the details and how we got there. It’s better to
think about — in who I promote and what I endorse — am I reflecting what god would want? Of
course there’s strategy involve and you want to get wins. But I don’t think wins are the priority.
It’s witness. Where Metaxas and them went wrong is that wins and power became the priority. If
the objective is achieved and everything is just details that’s completely the wrong way. If the
spirit in which you do something is not right then it’s not right.” Do you disagree?

Yes, I think Mr. Giboney misses the larger and main point. The witness of the American church
has effectively been non-existent for decades. The idea that we had a golden reputation that is
suddenly somehow being tarnished by support for the beyond-the-pale president trikes me as
naive, or at least very idealistic, and certainly historically myopic. Serious Christians have been
demonized by the secular culture throughout the five decades of my lifetime. Nearly everything
serious Christians have said or done has been the object of scorn. Not to see this is to be
culturally and historically deeply out of touch. Have we forgotten how the extremely kind and
upstanding and generous Tim Tebow was treated the by press and the cultural elites? We
shouldn’t. It says volumes on this subject.

So yes, perhaps our cultural cache is not what we would like, and perhaps some people ought to
worry more about their witness. But we can also worry about it far too much. We must not forget
that Jesus said his critics were like the children in the marketplace who said: “We played the pipe
and you did not dance. You played a dirge and you did not mourn.” In other words, we are likely
damned if we do and damned if we don’t. In our efforts to attract cultural bona fides, we can
sometimes be casting pearls before swine. So in the end we need to be about doing our Father’s
business and worrying mostly our audience of One. He is the judge of what we do and what we
say and how we do it and how we say it. If we worried more about that, we would be glorifying
our Father who is in heaven in a way we cannot glorify him by worrying about how certain
progressive elites judge us, which will nearly always be poorly.

In the piece I wrote for the WSJ just before the 2016 election I was simply trying to say the same
thing, that we cannot opt out of voting and pretend that we were not sullied when one of the
candidates was elected because we refused to vote. We will be complicit in the election of
whoever is elected unless we vote for the only person who can defeat them. And whatever that
person’s good and bad points, we ought more than anything to be concerned with the real effects
that person’s presidency will have on all Americans. For example, African American families
will be effected by certain policies, and if you care about those families you need to vote for the
person who you think will do the best by those constituencies. Some people may denounce you
for your vote, but it is a vote between you and God. Only He can judge you, but of course He
will judge you, and let that be your only consideration when you do vote. What Trump said
twelve years ago in a private conversation that was caught on a hot mic may and should be taken
into consideration, but if bridling at that sort of thing is principally how one makes such
extremely important decisions as voting for the presidency, one is hardly taking the long view or
seriously considering the needs of those who are suffering among us, whose suffering demands a
more aggressive untangling of the many issues that go into such decisions, not least from those
who think of themselves as Christians.

Further, the idea that we might allow someone who is perhaps the most strident advocate in our
generation of abortion on demand — not to say among the most cynical and corrupt politicians in
recent history — occupy the Oval Office because we did not like the cut of the other candidate’s
cultural jib is itself a scandal. Wilberforce overlooked the tremendously dissolute behavior of
such as Charles Fox only because he knew that the hundreds of thousands of Africans who were
suffering in the British Slave Trade mattered more than the well-known immorality of Mr. Fox.

• You wrote in your book “If You Can Keep It” about the need for virtuous citizens, and you
defined virtue as the willingness to sacrifice personal interests for the common good. This seems
central to how different people interpret Trump, and to why many white evangelical Trump
voters feel the need to defend him as president, because criticizing him feels like acknowledging
that voting for him was actually an act of self-preservation that hurt the rest of the country. What
do you think of that?

• Have you engaged much with John Fea’s critique of your book? He makes a persuasive
argument that you have airbrushed the American founding into an airbrushed version that
exaggerates the role of Christianity as the sole source of virtue (not one of several), that
exaggerates the extent to which there was religious liberty at the founding (Seamus Hasson’s
“Right to Be Wrong” is best I’ve read on this topic), and treats the American experiment as
more of a miracle detached from anything before it than it was. Fea writes that America built on
the democratic principles at play in British life, which is something of a subtle point, but an
interesting one which tempers exuberance over American exceptionalism as some kind of
divinely ordered miracle. He also believes you give the Great Awakening too much credit for
how it influenced American politics. The greater point is that Fea thinks you make a common
mistake of many evangelicals, that of confusing America with the kingdom of God. This is a
complex and nuanced point. A firm rootedness in one’s citizenship in heaven should not produce
passivity or fatalism about one’s community or nation here on earth. But the critique of culture
warriors often is that they cling too tightly to worldly outcomes because the two categories
(kingdom of God and America) have become almost unintelligibly mixed or combined. Do you
think you have done this in any way?

Mr. Fea’s critiques have not only not persuaded me, they have helped me see more clearly why
what I said in my book If You Can Keep It is necessary to communicate to as many Americans as
possible at this time in history. If I could give a copy of that book to every American — or at least
to every young American — I would do so. Mr. Fea’s misunderstanding on this central issue —
 one that particularly seems to plague academics — is at the heart of our problems as a culture and
as a church.

To mix these very separate categories is a great sin indeed, but such sins must be in the eyes of
the beholder. I am afraid Mr. Fea has committed the opposite sin in being so enamored of a
certain anti-populist and anti-American narrative — which view is so trendy in the Academy that
he should be concerned about having accepted it himself — that he falls into the category of those
who find any healthy celebration of patriotism as like unto worshipping the Beast of Revelation.

• Charles Marsh has also argued that your work on Bonhoeffer mischaracterized him. What’s
your opinion of his critique?

The handful of early negative reviews of my book on Bonhoeffer have not struck me as
substantive, or as anything more than ideological griping, so I have labored to ignore them. The
typos and nits to which some of them affixed themselves like lampreys were happily corrected in
subsequent editions, so their authors should long ago have swum away content with what blood
they have managed to suck. I am unaware of Mr. Marsh’s critique of my book and was under the
impression he had not read it. In his own work on the great Bonhoeffer, he veers from some
wonderfully scholarly work and good writing to quite shockingly — and unintentionally
hilariously — portraying Bonhoeffer as a lavender swell mincing and vogue-ing his way through
the corridors of the Third Reich; and even at one point swanning down the Champs Ellysses in
shimmering golden underwear (sic). By painting Bonhoeffer as gayer-by-a-yard-of-tulle than
Charles Nelson Reilly and Charles Busch combined is intellectually hideous, yet cannot help but
tickle most careful readers toward an ear-shattering horselaugh. The impressive length and
breadth of this lode of queering fatally mars what might otherwise have been a book I could have
recommended. This lamentable distortion of Bonhoeffer is such an injustice to the memory of
one of the bravest — and genuinely manliest — Christians of the last century that charity compels
me to screech to a halt here, rather early on this ugly road. Quel dommage. That Dr. Marsh might
take issue with some aspects of my own book cannot be surprising.

• In April 2016, you said the following: “The church is meant to be the conscience of the state,
not to be in bed with the state, cozy with the state, but to be the conscience of the state.” Do you
think evangelicals like Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr. have lived up to this? Have you?

Obviously one must define “the state” before one can answer this. You seem for some reason to
want to define the state more as “the Trump administration” than as “the Obama administration”
or as “that-administration-which-cannot-be-named from which the Trump victory saved
America.” This makes any conversation on this subject inescapably preposterous. If we cannot
agree on a definition of the state, how can we agree on what the church should do in response to
that ill-defined state.

But let me say what I think the state is today — to which the American church must not bow. I
think it is principally the same state that has for the last five decades supported an activist
judiciary bent on forcing all Christians to bow before the idol of the murder of the unborn — as
the price we must pay for such unbridled sexual license as used to make the pagans blush. The
Founders in warning against — and in forcefully and clearly prohibiting — the establishment of a
religion could not foresee the day when a secular religion took hold in America to the extent that
it was being established by the American government in a way that is as forceful and puritanical
and unforgiving as anything ever established by the Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony,
whose cruel branding of apostates only differed from our own in also being literal.

To use American’s taxes to pay for the murder of those yet unborn, or the teaching of unbiblical
views of gender and sex to innocent children in our public schools is effectively to have allowed
a secular religion (religion being defined by a certain set of views toward the ultimate questions,
such as the definitions of what constitutes a human being and what constitutes marriage) become
established. This is itself a kind of tyranny or fascism imposed by cultural elites. It is
unconstitutional and unAmerican and our forebears took up arms and risked their lives to fight
against such things. Can the American church not at least identify these sins and speak out
against them, even if all they are risking is their social standing among the unforgiving secular
elites of our time? If we think doing that might harm our “witness”, we are of course correct, but
what are we to do? What witness have we got if we don’t speak out for the unborn and for those
trying to practice their faith in a culture that demonizes them and with a government that
increasingly harasses them and persecutes them and destroys their livelihoods?

What must the average non-evangelical American make of a church unwilling to risk any
cultural capital in standing up for good people trying to live out their simple faith? Can we
imagine that these non-evangelicals view such holier-than-thou inaction with admiration? If we
define fighting at all as mere “culture warring” or as something only worldly bullies do, then
only bullies will win. There is a time to fight for justice. We cannot forget how important a part
of our witness that has been throughout history. Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer and Dr. King were
all angrily accused of importing their faith into the dirty business of this world, of being too
“political” and of being unseemly and vulgar in crawling down into the filthy fray of fighting for
those for whom many of their religious confreres refused to fight. Jesus, too, might have stayed
where he was, unsullied and unridiculed and uncrucified. But how happy we are that he didn’t.

Self-proclaimed Christians who turn the other cheek to some State-sponsored slaps but who
stand by or even applaud when Roman soldiers crucify those guilty of other slaps are the bane of
our great democracy. This cherry-picking of which laws or principles to enforce is the end of
freedom and the beginning of a genuine fascism. If we cannot all agree on the same rules for all,
but have come to the point where some of us are “more equal” than others — with the excuse that
“true justice” demands we put our thumbs on the scales to impose an important “historical”
corrective — then we have already fallen far indeed.

The signal accomplishment of many who have bitterly and sourly opposed Trump is to illustrate
that puritanism is not dead in America, but has only shed its 17th century weeds for more
contemporary ones. Those who disagrees with the new political orthodoxy are so viciously
denounced that the denunciatory epithets of racism and bigotry have been bled white of all
meaning. Anyone who has seen real racism must howl at the idea that a vote for this president
constitutes some kind of racism, and yet the smearing with that and other epithets — whether
xenophobic or jingoistic or “deplorable” — of all who voted for this president should not go
unanswered. I think of all the good and great people I know who have voted for this president
and who therefore have been unconscionably spat upon as racists I am deeply grieved.

I think first of all of those men and women of color who have been insulted as unworthy of their
race in supporting this president, as though they must all vote alike because of their skin color.
This is of course a supremely and genuinely racist idea. One of the greatest brain-surgeons of our
time, Dr. Ben Carson, who pulled himself up out of direst poverty, has supported this president,
and even helped him get elected and then joined his administration. African-American sports
legends such as Jim Brown and George Foreman have supported him too. The list is nearly
endless. Are we to denounce even these as unwitting racists? Or shall we simply patronize them
as ignorant?

I think of all the other men and women I admire who have expressed their support for this
president, and who have all been insulted daily by those cultural mandarins who treat them as
beneath contempt, as though their votes are dirtied with “self-interest” and tribalist nationalistic
impulses. If the opinions of these good people who have supported this president cannot be
afforded a decent modicum of respect by other Americans, how can I or anyone else take their
critics seriously? I think more than anything of my extraordinary ninety-year-old father who
suffered tremendously in his life and who saw the demonic face of communism up close. He
legally immigrated to this country and dealt with genuine xenophobia as he struggled mightily to
support a family, with an accent he could never shed, but he nonetheless loved this country and
still loves it, and taught his children to love her, too; and he voted for this president and supports
him more strongly than ever. Such as would dare even slightly to imply that this man I so admire
and cherish has an iota of racism in him necessarily place themselves in the ugliest ranks of those
to be pitied. But their implicit or explicit thoughts along these lines I denounce as not less than
despicable.

As a Christian I have no choice but to forgive those guilty of these things, to know that they are
themselves coming from places of pain and misunderstanding. But what I cannot do is give the
slimmest quarter to their grotesque and harmful views. And by God’s grace I never shall. In this
way — by speaking the truth as I see it and living out that truth to the best of my ability — I hope
to love my own ideological enemies. END

_________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Eric Metaxas

Thx Eric — I’m laid out with flu so I’ll read this when I’m not hallucinating.
Jon

__________________________________________
From: Eric Metaxas
Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Jon Ward

Jon — it dawns on me that for proper context the ideal thing would be for you to just run the
whole thing as a Q and A, no? Can you do that? And if you need me to clarify anything let me
know? I know it’s long, but it needs context… Eric

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Eric Metaxas

That’s where my head was going. I’m glad you suggested it. It would be an accompaniment to
the piece I’m doing but I agree that publishing the whole exchange seems worthwhile. I am
going to send a follow up with a few thoughts and questions, now that I’ve had the opportunity
to read and digest it. Hoping to get that to you today.

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 2:57 PM

Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas

To: Eric Metaxas

Eric,

Thanks for your response. I share your exasperation, and even grief, over the harshness and lack
of charity in of public discourse. And I lament the times I have contributed to this problem.

It is also an ever-present question whether one should “seek to understand” one’s opponents or
critics more than one should “speak out” against them, and I suppose there is a healthy middle
ground between those two things. It did strike me in reading your e-mail, however, that you
almost exclusively “spoke out” against your critics while simultaneously complaining that none
of them every try to understand you. You also made many conclusions about your critics’
motives or lack of willingness to learn, and even subtly questioned the sincerity of their faith on
many occasions by using phrases like “self-proclaimed Christians” and the like. Your own
approach to your critics seems to be much more focused on speaking out against them than it is
on understanding their point of view. Like I said, this is a difficult tension to find, and we are
never perfect. But that is my sense of things from your email.

A few questions and observations:

When you describe the benefits of religious liberty, you mention that it helps “atheists, agnostics,
Buddhist, Universalists, and Episcopalians.” Given the way you wrote about Islam, it made me
wonder if you left Islam out of that list on purpose or by accident. Do you believe Muslims
should also be beneficiaries of religious liberty in America, or are they an exception to the rule?

You describe your own support of Trump as “tepid.” I think with good reason many people
viewed your WSJ oped and your comment that Christians “must” vote for Trump as anything but
tepid support. But why do you yourself view it as tepid?

There were a few things which struck me in your email as dissonant and contradictory. It was
surprising to me that you castigated others for having an “End of All Things” mentality and for
viewing their opponents as akin to Hitler. You wrote during the election that Christians “must
vote for Trump” because he was “the last best hope of keeping America from sliding into
oblivion, the tank, the abyss, the dustbin of history.” That seems like the mentality of someone
who is “believing the world’s end to be imminent.”

And your e-mail you criticize those who compare their opponents as Nazis. Of course, you
referred to Hillary Clinton as “Hitlery” during the election. If you apologized for that remark, I
am not aware of it. In addition, later in the same email you compare your own critics to Nazis
when you say that those who expect you to “harrumph their every disapproval of Trump on
twitter” are like when Germans were “expected to say ‘Heil Hitler!’ sufficiently loudly and
often.” You even compare those you disagree with to demons when you sketch a world in which
“elites” have “xenophobia” against “white European ‘Christian’ varieties,” and you then state
that “Satan always come [sic] as an angel of light.”

And I also think you avoided engaging with many of the questions I asked by dismissing all of
your critics as extreme and unreasonable, or liberal, or both. But in fact many people who
disagree with you or have criticized your public comments are conservative Christians, people
like John Mark Reynolds, Andy Crouch, John Wilson, David French, Beth Moore, Ann
Voskamp, Justin Giboney, etc. As far as I know all these people hold similar if not identical
views as you on abortion and sexuality and marriage. So much of your email was taken up with
dismissing your critics, and decrying them as “vile” and “obscene” and “childish” and
“impotent” when many of your critics and those who disagree with you are devout brothers and
sisters of yours in the faith.

The heart of the critique many have leveled against you is I guess two-pronged. The first prong is
that many think it it makes little sense for you to write a book about the need to bring virtue back
in America, and then endorse a leader who enthusiastically scorns many of the things that
Christians consider virtuous. The second prong relates to the “politics of self-interest” and to
religious liberty.
A bit of clarification. Self-interest is obviously an integral part of politics. But the politics of self-
interest becomes a negative term when it means, as you put it yourself, that one is not
“concerned with the real effects” of a presidency “on all Americans.” You spent a few words
dismissing the concerns of those Trump has denigrated or who feel threatened by this president,
but for the most you also avoided engaging on that topic.

On the point of foreign policy in particular, I agree time will tell and it is too soon to know for
sure what the outcome will be of the Trump presidency. But of what we know so far, it’s not my
own views that I was relying on. It was authoritative reporting on the concerns and views of
foreign leaders from people like Susan Glass and Evan Osnos, and it was remarks like the one
Angela Merkel made last summer about a less dependable America.

I also think your definitions of “the state” and “witness” are not in line with how most people
understand those terms. I don’t think most Christians think of “witness” as attracting “cultural
bona fides.” I think they view it as showing an allegiance to and faith in Christ that gives you the
ability to be a strong advocate for what you believe, but to stop short of pursuing victory by any
means, and to say no to a win for self-interest if it means violating certain principles. Or
something like that anyway.

At the end of the day, I think the heart of the critique from other Christians who hold similar
views to you is that they agree with you in general about the hostility of the modern left to
conservative views on sexuality, gay marriage, and religious liberty. They might not call it
“fascism” but they would certainly have deep concerns. And yet they would believe that the
Christian’s calling is to work and advocate for rights of conscience in the public square, to find
accommodation and compromise where possible, and to try to live at peace with all men. But for
them, supporting Trump — even though he promised protection for conservative Christians from
their opponents on these issues — was a violation of their faith and its precepts, and to throw in
with Trump would have been to panic, to abandon faith in the promise that God holds their life
in his hands, and to put their hope in retaining cultural and political power rather than in allowing
God’s power and goodness to show itself through them as they endured hardship and challenge.

It seems you might say in response that Bonhoeffer did not simply stand by as an evil regime
moved forward. He resisted violently, and unto death. But that is where your comparison of what
you describe as the secular “state” — to something similar to Nazi Germany — breaks down. The
Nazi’s murdered millions. And there is nothing even remotely similar happening today.

Jon

__________________________________________

From: Elisa Leberis

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:25 PM

Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas

To: Jon Ward

Cc: Eric Metaxas

Hello, Jon,

Eric took some time on his trip to write the comments below. Hope this works for you.

Elisa

A few questions and observations:

When you describe the benefits of religious liberty, you mention that it helps “atheists, agnostics,
Buddhist, Universalists, and Episcopalians.” Given the way you wrote about Islam, it made me
wonder if you left Islam out of that list on purpose or by accident. Do you believe Muslims
should also be beneficiaries of religious liberty in America, or are they an exception to the rule?

Without question I do. Absolutely. Nor did I mean to sweep away Rastafarians or Rosicrucians,
but the list of religions practiced in America is so vast that one cannot be complete. I meant by
that list to include all religions by implication. What have I ever written to lead you to believe
that I might be a secret Islamophobe, or do all those who voted against Mrs. Clinton need to
make that explicit? Can you see how your implication might strike me as ungenerous?

You describe your own support of Trump as “tepid.” I think with good reason many people
viewed your WSJ oped and your comment that Christians “must” vote for Trump as anything but
tepid support. But why do you yourself view it as tepid?

I felt that once the nomination went to him — and the Democratic nomination to Hillary
Clinton — there was a very clear choice, and a dramatic one. And yes, I felt that if people
understood the tremendous danger Hillary Clinton posed, the choice for Trump was clear,
despite the many important concerns people had about him.

There were a few things which struck me in your email as dissonant and contradictory. It was
surprising to me that you castigated others for having an “End of All Things” mentality and for
viewing their opponents as akin to Hitler. You wrote during the election that Christians “must
vote for Trump” because he was “the last best hope of keeping America from sliding into
oblivion, the tank, the abyss, the dustbin of history.” That seems like the mentality of someone
who is “believing the world’s end to be imminent.”

These things are not only not close to parallels, they are virtually unrelated. It is one thing to
advocate dramatically wrong-headed scorched earth measures because one believes history is
folding up its tents and another to advocate that people legally and appropriately cast a vote for a
candidate in a free election because one believes that candidate’s opponent is the practical enemy
of American self-government.

And your e-mail you criticize those who compare their opponents as Nazis. Of course, you
referred to Hillary Clinton as “Hitlery” during the election. If you apologized for that remark, I
am not aware of it. In addition, later in the same email you compare your own critics to Nazis
when you say that those who expect you to “harrumph their every disapproval of Trump on
twitter” are like when Germans were “expected to say ‘Heil Hitler!’ sufficiently loudly and
often.” You even compare those you disagree with to demons when you sketch a world in which
“elites” have “xenophobia” against “white European ‘Christian’ varieties,” and you then state
that “Satan always come [sic] as an angel of light.”

I wince to think that anyone could be in such straits as actually to believe my tweet about
“Hitlery” anything but a wild goofball joke.The agonizing and deeply fatiguing seriousness of
many progressives in America as evidenced by this misunderstanding may indeed be a sign that
the End is Nigh after all. Perhaps I should make clear that I am joking about that, too, eh? But
seriously, since I wrote a long book on the Third Reich, I would have liked to think people might
have given me more credit.

And I also think you avoided engaging with many of the questions I asked by dismissing all of
your critics as extreme and unreasonable, or liberal, or both. But in fact many people who
disagree with you or have criticized your public comments are conservative Christians, people
like John Mark Reynolds, Andy Crouch, John Wilson, David French, Beth Moore, Ann Voskamp,
Justin Giboney, etc. As far as I know all these people hold similar if not identical views as you on
abortion and sexuality and marriage. So much of your email was taken up with dismissing your
critics, and decrying them as “vile” and “obscene” and “childish” and “impotent” when many
of your critics and those who disagree with you are devout brothers and sisters of yours in the
faith.

I am afraid you have dramatically mischaracterized my responses to my critics and in saying

these things you are stooping to the level of attempting to egg me into a response that is more
emotional than substantive. Jimmy Carter is my devout brother in Christ, but that doesn’t make
his ill-run term in the White House any less horrific from an historical perspective. Nor can the
advocacy of my brothers and sisters in Christ for anti-Christian policies anything less than
depressing. People can be wonderful and full of faith and still be terribly mistaken politically.
People can vote or not vote for many good and pious reasons, but in the end, real people are
affected, and I simply believe we need to think hard about those real people, both here and
abroad.

The heart of the critique many have leveled against you is I guess two-pronged. The first prong is
that many think it it makes little sense for you to write a book about the need to bring virtue back
in America, and then endorse a leader who enthusiastically scorns many of the things that
Christians consider virtuous. The second prong relates to the “politics of self-interest” and to
religious liberty.
A bit of clarification. Self-interest is obviously an integral part of politics. But the politics of self-
interest becomes a negative term when it means, as you put it yourself, that one is not
“concerned with the real effects” of a presidency “on all Americans.” You spent a few words
dismissing the concerns of those Trump has denigrated or who feel threatened by this president,
but for the most you also avoided engaging on that topic.
I suppose I avoid engaging in that topic because I find it unhelpful and dramatically besides the
real point. If I thought Trump corrupt or self-serving in a way that was dangerous to the country
then yes, that would be important and dispositive, but from my perspective the high crime of
buffoonish tweeting neither rises to the level of an impeachable offense nor a Constitutional
crisis. Also, if his sexual misbehavior had extended into the recent past of his campaign and into
the present of his presidency, as JFK’s and Lyndon Johnson’s and Bill Clinton’s very certainly
did, I would see things very differently. That his critics never bring up this troika of swinish
sexual abusers tells me that their criticisms of the current president’s behavior are merely
political sour grapes. Not to say shameful in its hypocrisy.

On the point of foreign policy in particular, I agree time will tell and it is too soon to know for
sure what the outcome will be of the Trump presidency. But of what we know so far, it’s not my
own views that I was relying on. It was authoritative reporting on the concerns and views of
foreign leaders from people like Susan Glass and Evan Osnos, and it was remarks like the one
Angela Merkel made last summer about a less dependable America.
I also think your definitions of “the state” and “witness” are not in line with how most people
understand those terms. I don’t think most Christians think of “witness” as attracting “cultural
bona fides.” I think they view it as showing an allegiance to and faith in Christ that gives you the
ability to be a strong advocate for what you believe, but to stop short of pursuing victory by any
means, and to say no to a win for self-interest if it means violating certain principles. Or
something like that anyway.
At the end of the day, I think the heart of the critique from other Christians who hold similar
views to you is that they agree with you in general about the hostility of the modern left to
conservative views on sexuality, gay marriage, and religious liberty. They might not call it
“fascism” but they would certainly have deep concerns. And yet they would believe that the
Christian’s calling is to work and advocate for rights of conscience in the public square, to find
accommodation and compromise where possible, and to try to live at peace with all men. But for
them, supporting Trump — even though he promised protection for conservative Christians from
their opponents on these issues — was a violation of their faith and its precepts, and to throw in
with Trump would have been to panic, to abandon faith in the promise that God holds their life
in his hands, and to put their hope in retaining cultural and political power rather than in
allowing God’s power and goodness to show itself through them as they endured hardship and
challenge.

I certainly understand this view and of course many dear friends of mine hold to this
interpretation of things, but I am afraid I simply consider this interpretation to be mistaken, and
not only mistaken, but deeply destructive all around, to Christians and non-Christians alike.
Christians who think the Church in America might have survived a Hillary Clinton presidency
are something like the devout Christian Germans who seriously and prayerfully thought it
unChristian to be involved in opposing Hitler because to do so would have dirtied their hands
with politics. I really do understand how they thought that, but I also think they were very
horribly mistaken and cannot now pretend my friends making this mistake are not doing great
harm, just as many of them think that I am doing great harm. This is one case where I sincerely
wish I were on the wrong side of the issue. Nor do I mean to compare Hillary to Hitler, but the
principle at issue is the same nonetheless.
It seems you might say in response that Bonhoeffer did not simply stand by as an evil regime
moved forward. He resisted violently, and unto death. But that is where your comparison of what
you describe as the secular “state” — to something similar to Nazi Germany — breaks down. The
Nazi’s murdered millions. And there is nothing even remotely similar happening today.

This is another confusing non-parallel. The Nazis were not murdering millions until the Forties,
but they might have been stopped in the early Thirties if the church in Germany had properly
understood its role with regard to the state. Bonhoeffer dramatically tried to wake the church up
to its role many years before the Nazis were murdering millions, precisely because he saw where
their ideology was leading. And of course he failed. Shall we too stand by because things aren’t
“bad enough” yet?

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Elisa Leberis
Cc: Eric Metaxas

Thanks Eric.

Just two quick thoughts.

In response to your comment that it might have been ungenerous to ask about extending religious
liberty to Muslims, I’d just say that given the way you wrote about what you referred to as “the
Islamization of … America,” it raised questions in my mind, and I think it would have only been
ungenerous to assume what you meant rather than asking for clarification. But you talked about
“standing against … Islamization” and didn’t really define what that meant. So I wanted to seek
clarity.

And secondly, regarding your answer to the last question, the implication of what you said is that
the ideology of the left will, or could, lead to a catastrophe involving government-sponsored
murder on a mass scale. Am I misinterpreting your argument?

Thanks — Jon

__________________________________________

From: Elisa Leberis

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Jon Ward
Cc: Eric Metaxas
Hi Jon,

As you know Eric is traveling and also sick — are you able to work with what you’ve got
already?

Elisa

__________________________________________

From: Jon Ward

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Elisa Leberis
Cc: Eric Metaxas

I am. If he wants to respond to that second question just let me know. Hope he feels better. I’m
very sorry to hear he’s still sick, and while traveling. — jw

__________________________________________

From: Elisa Leberis

Date: Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: interview request YAHOO NEWS Metaxas
To: Jon Ward
Cc: Eric Metaxas

Wonderful — thank you, Jon. Okay, will do, and thanks for the good wishes.

Elisa