This week’s Trump scandal of the week is that our President allegedly referred to countries like Haiti and several African nations as, to use a little circumlocution, outhouse wells. Whether Trump actually said that or not is unclear. With Dick Durban as the only “reliable” source, who really knows. This wouldn’t be the first time Dick Durban flat out made something up about a private meeting, as has been documented here.
But since the possibility exists – and it is a plausible story – that Trump may have said this, the media is outraged. Again. That makes, I think, 52 weeks in a row that the media has been in an uproar about Trump; 52 weeks in a row that we have been told that this was Trump’s worst week yet; 52 weeks in a row that we have been reminded that Trump is a racist and we are all doomed and Trump will be impeached by… who knows. The date keeps getting pushed back. People just can’t keep their commitments these days.
Since the media narrative has been that Trump is a racist, we are happy to believe Dick Durban. Even Steve Bannon gets his moment in the spotlight, so long as he is bashing Trump. And this morning, I heard the latest Trump scandal – he woke up breathing. Which I think is the real problem.
Trump’s toilet analogy of some third-world countries has predictably unleashed a stream of hit pieces on Trump’s racism. Reporters asked Trump to respond to those who say that he is a racist. Trump (predictably) answered, “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed, that I can tell you.” Wow. Didn’t see that coming. His answer prompted editors at The Atlantic to interview their big room of experienced reporters and ask them “Who was the least racist person you’ve ever interviewed?” You can read that here. Their answers are very revealing, in case you had any illusions about reporters at The Atlantic.
My favorite answer came from James Fallows, who said
Claims that begin, “I’m no bigot, but…” “I’m no chauvinist, but…” or “I’m the least racist person you’ve ever met, but…” always mean, and are always universally understood to mean, the exact opposite.
Ah, yes. We trapped you again, Donald. Haven’t you learned yet? Answering our questions is proof, as is not answering our questions.
Meanwhile, yet another “big name” celebrity is taken down by the #MeToo movement. I suppose I will demonstrate what a rube I am, but I had never heard of Aziz Ansari before this weekend. Truth be told, I’m not a big fan of pop entertainment. Anyway, The Atlantic also has an interesting article on the subject.
Here is my take on the larger issue. For decades now, Christians have been mocked and ridiculed for teaching abstinence, for holding high standards – especially when it comes to “dating” standards, for preaching that a man ought not to touch a woman and that a man and a woman should not be alone together without a chaperone. In response, we were called prudes. We were accused of suppressing our raging sexual desires and hiding our secret fantasies behind our high standards. Now we learn that actually, women don’t want to be treated like a conquest.
But now men aren’t so sure how they are supposed to go about this great mating free-for-all. The girl goes on a date with a guy, alone. She goes to his apartment with him, again alone. She sits up on his countertop and makes out with him. What part of “no” doesn’t he understand? Wham-O: sexual misconduct.
And now we are faced with a quandary. How are we supposed to know whether the green light really means “go,” and what are we supposed to do when it skips the yellow light and changes suddenly to red.
One thing we all know: the world is not about to say, “Maybe the Christians had it right about this dating thing for all these years.” I was reading an article a month or so ago – I can’t seem to find it now – but the author was wrestling with this thing of “consent” and how to separate the stalking creep from the flirting stud. She had some pretty convoluted ideas about these things, but, interestingly, she wasn’t in favor of bringing an end to men hitting on women. As she explained, her boss hit on her, and she married him. They were still married too, which is to their credit no doubt.
I couldn’t help but think about the grace and kindness of God, Who has given us His law of holiness as a mercy to us, in order to spare us from the pain of lived out horror stories. “Flee fornication” is not God’s way of handing you a boring life in a cardboard box. “This do, and thou shalt live.” At God’s right hand there are pleasures forevermore.
While the world ponders what “consent” really means, Christians should show them – it means a wedding dress, a father walking his daughter down the aisle, flowers and bridesmaids and groomsmen and rings and vows exchanged. It means wedding cake and maybe a limousine and most of all a promise – no, a covenant: “Till death do us part.” That is consent. And until that consent, the consent of a father giving his daughter in marriage, there can be no other.
P.S. After writing this article, I came across an article Kent Brandenburg wrote about Trump, one I wholeheartedly agree with. Let me encourage you to read it. I have linked to it here. When you finish, make sure you watch the CRTV video at the end. Very satisfying.