Why Donald Trump’s endorsement of a Bible should make Christians feel uncomfortable

This weekend, many Christians throughout the world will be celebrating Easter. Easter is of course the holiest and most important event in the Christian calendar, which celebrates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And to mark the week leading up to the celebrations, former President Donald Trump used the occasion to offer his endorsement to a new edition of the bible, called the God Bless the USA Bible.

The God Bless the USA Bible is inspired by country singer Lee Greenwood’s well-known patriotic song of the same name, and contains not only the entire King James version of the bible, but also the United States’s cornerstone civic texts: the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Alongside these texts, there is also the Pledge of Allegiance, and a handwritten chorus of Lee’s God Bless The USA, which gives this bible its name. Aside from this, the God Bless the USA Bible proudly boasts that it is the only Bible to be endorsed by President Trump. It also comes with a hefty price tag of $59.99.

Despite Trump’s endorsement, however, it’s not -his- bible as such, nor is this bible official Trump campaign merchandise.  Despite some suggestions that proceeds from the bible sales are a way for Trump to foot his $175m bond ahead of his hush money trial in April, this is unlikely to be the case: the God Bless the USA Bible states that it is unaffiliated with Trump’s campaign or with any candidate, and so neither Trump nor his campaign will directly be profiting from sales of the bible.

While I’m sure that Lee Greenwood simply wanted to find a new and creative way of sharing his faith and patriotism with others, there are some things about this bible that don’t sit well with me, and I say this as a practicing Christian. Don’t get me wrong: I love Lee’s beautiful song God Bless The USA. As an immigrant in the United States, the song fills me with great pride for this country, the dreams and ideals it was founded on and the hope it carries with it into the future. It reminds us how privileged we are to be here and how much we have to be thankful for; I’m sure this is the case for many people who have heard it. The same is true for the American civic texts, and I am proud to have a part of my life based in the United States. Also, as a Christian, the bible is of course important to me.

However, much as I love all of these things, that doesn’t mean that all of these things belong together in the same book. If Lee had maybe published a book which featured a collection of quotes, passages and writings which had inspired him as a Christian and an American (which could include some selected bible passages and excerpts from civic documents) with some explanation of what they meant to him, that might be different. But like DiGiorno’s pizza and cookies, having them together in one package doesn’t make sense. Besides that, there’s also the question of the $59.99 price tag; this seems unnecessarily vain when you can get a perfectly good bible from any bookstore for about a quarter of the price. However, this is not even the main cause of the discomfort for me.

The thing that causes me the greatest disquiet is the pride surrounding Trump’s “endorsement” of the God Bless the USA Bible. The bible’s website FAQs proudly boast that “this is the only Bible endorsed by President Trump”. But how can this be possible? Is Trump “only” endorsing the King James translation, or just the God Bless the USA Bible? Does this mean all other copies or translations of the bible are invalid? Regardless of what the bible is packaged with, the KJV text is the same in this bible as it is in any other copy of the KJV bible, as it has been in the more than 400 years since the translation was published, so how can he “only” endorse this one? I’m not certain what exactly is meant by the assertion that this is the only bible endorsed by President Trump, but it certainly seems disingenuous to suggest a President – or anyone for that matter – “only” endorses a particular bible. In any case, a bible which promises to be the “only” one with Trump’s endorsement and with a price tag of $59.99 certainly seems like something Jesus might have driven out of the Temple in Matthew 21 or Mark 11.

However, despite his endorsement, Trump has never been shown to be -that- religious, or to have any strong Christian convictions, and I’m not sure how familiar he is with the Bible (although he did state in his endorsement video that “All Americans need a Bible in their home, and I have many. It’s my favourite book.”). While Trump married his third wife, Melania, in an Episcopal church, he previously considered himself Presbyterian before declaring himself as nondenominational. However, his personal faith is likely only a name or a label: Trump was not a regular churchgoer before becoming President, save for occasional Christmas and Easter services. Indeed, a clear majority of American voters from all groups, including a plurality of white evangelicals, believe that Trump is either not very religious or not religious at all.

So if he’s not particularly religious, why is he endorsing and advertising a $59.99 bible, when as we’ve discussed, a perfectly good King James bible or any other version could be purchased for a fraction of the price? I fear that the answer is as simple as it may appear: a campaign strategy. While just about half of white evangelicals view Trump as being either not very religious or not religious at all, 48% believe that he is at least somewhat religious, despite never professing any firm beliefs. Previously, Presidents and presidential candidates as varied as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden have had their faiths discussed at length and have all been subject to often intense scrutiny over them, and yet this has not been the case for Trump. And yet it is Trump – whose religious convictions do not appear to be that strong at all – who seems to be the darling of the Christian right. If Trump is not personally profiting from this venture, endorsing a bible, which combines Christian faith and American patriotism, seems to be a way for Trump to keep up appearances with his key voters. Or to put it another way, Trump is purely grifting.

As far as I see it, endorsing this particular Bible for advertising purposes, and proudly professing that it is the “only” bible to be endorsed by the man who is hoping to be re-elected as President in November is in contravention of a key commandment in the Christian faith, namely the Fifth Commandment. The Fifth Commandment reads in the King James Version of the Bible “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7). An example of taking God’s name in vain would be to misuse or invoke God as a means to achieve your own ends; endorsing the sale of the holy book of two billion people worldwide that you have no real connection to in order to rally electoral support may well fall under that. By boasting that the God Bless the USA Bible is the “only” bible to be endorsed by President Trump, that makes this bible more about Trump and less about the good news of God and Jesus Christ that it can share with the world.

I happen to agree with President Trump that every American home ought to have a Bible: it’s an important reference book for both the religious and the non-religious, the theist and atheist alike. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with having a strong faith or sense of patriotism, or with carrying such inspirational texts with you. However, as Christians, our faith often calls us to speak out when something is not right, and this certainly does not sit right with me. Maybe to reappropriate what Jesus said in Matthew 22:21: render unto Trump that which is Trump’s, and render unto God that which is God’s.

The Supreme Court ruled Trump can stay on the ballot in Colorado

On Monday, in a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court that former President Donald Trump was not allowed to appear on the ballot for the state’s Republican presidential primary.

Colorado had been fighting to have Trump removed from the ballot paper, arguing that, under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the former President had engaged in insurrection during the events of the January 6th, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol by supporters of the President who sought to prevent Congress from ratifying the results of the 2020 Presidential Election, which Trump lost. The move, which was brought by a number of advocacy groups in Colorado and which ultimately won the backing of Secretary of State Jana Griffin, argued that Trump should be banned from appearing on the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Following this, Maine and Illinois also introduced similar measures to bar Trump from the ballot.

However, after winning the ruling in the Colorado Supreme Court, Trump’s team appealed, and the case went to the United States Supreme Court; on Monday the nine justices unanimously ruled that the Colorado did not have the authority to ban a candidate from appearing on the ballot paper for a federal election. However, deeper in the case there was less agreement, with the Court ruling 5-4 that only Congress held that power (with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson stopping short of agreeing with that detail). Therefore, Donald Trump will be allowed to appear on the ballot in Colorado. Following this ruling, Maine and Illinois also withdrew their measures to block Trump from the ballot in those states.

So the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado could not use the 14th Amendment to block Trump from the ballot. But what exactly does the 14th Amendment say? The text of the section in question – Section 3 – reads:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

In bringing its case against Trump, Colorado faced two key stumbling blocks: first – as some of the justices highlighted – there is the question as to whether a state can block something determined at the federal level. It is quite possible, however, that if Trump had been running for office within the state, such as Governor, that Colorado could have blocked him from the ballot. Secondly, there is the question of whether Trump “engaged in insurrection“; any opinions of his actions leading up to January 6th aside, as it currently stands, Trump has not actually been convicted on any insurrection or rebellion charges, and ultimately is unlikely to be. Therefore, one cannot really lay a penalty on somebody for a charge they have not been convicted of.

But was overturning the ruling of the Colorado Supreme Court the right decision? In this writer’s opinion, yes: I do not believe it would be the place for any state to cast a decision which could ultimately impact the rest of the United States. Just as the federal government cannot rule on a matter reserved for the state level, neither should a state be able to make a ruling on a federal matter. Besides, there is the worse issue of the precedent this might set: as with the issue of court packing, removing Trump from the ballot would likely be a slippery slope, as the doors would be open in the future for states to bar any candidate they wished from the ballot for any reason they saw fit. We can only imagine, for example, if states had been allowed to block Barack Obama from the ballot in 2008 over the ludicrous “birther” conspiracy theories (of which, it must be said, Trump was a high-profile proponent). Therein, I would argue, lies a greater and graver threat to democracy.

Three years on from the events of January 6th, 2021, my opinions on Donald Trump’s role in stoking the violence on the United States Capitol have not changed. Furthermore, this ruling, in spite of some media interpretations, certainly does not exonerate Trump for any role he had in the events of January 6th. However, it certainly seems as if the final ruling on Trump will take place not in the court by judges, but at the ballot box: it will be for voters, rather than courts, to decide if Donald Trump is indeed fit to hold the office of President of the United States again.

And with that said, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. And if current polling is anything to be believed, there is a very real chance that voters could indeed return Donald Trump to the White House.