President Trump cancels Kamala Harris’ Secret Service detail

This CNN headline just came across my news feed: “Trump cancels Kamala Harris’ Secret Service detail that was extended by undisclosed Biden order.” When I saw the news, it felt punitive to me.

In this day of partisan rancor, it seems politicians are at heightened risk of violence. From the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband to the arsonist who targeted Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, such threats are in the news regularly. Not to mention the two assassination attempts on Mr. Trump.

Accordingly, as the article notes, former presidents receive Secret Service protection for life. Why, then, would Mr. Trump cancel Ms. Harris’s protection?

The answer comes later in the article, which adds that, according to federal law, former vice presidents receive such protection only for six months after leaving office. This period ended on July 21.

A directive signed by then-President Joe Biden before leaving office but not made public until now extended her protection for an additional year. It was this directive that Mr. Trump canceled in his letter, titled “Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security” and dated Thursday.

Measuring what we don’t know by what we do

It is human nature to evaluate what we do not know by what we do. We learn the vocabulary of a language by likening its new words to words we already know. Good teachers work by association, linking a new concept to concepts their students already understand.

In the same way, we filter news of the world through our preconceptions of the world. If we are experiencing American culture as deeply partisan and divisive, which it is, we are likely to interpret all political events as reflecting such divisions. And if we take a side in this conflict, we will likely assume that the other side is wrong, whatever it does.

As a result, most political commentary seems to be written from the perspective that President Trump can do nothing right or that he can do nothing wrong. To suggest the contrary invites an inflamed response from partisans who disagree. The same is true regarding nearly every politician and political issue.

We see this even in our ministry, as nonpartisan as Denison Forum seeks to be. If I write something that partisans think does not support Mr. Trump sufficiently, or supports him at all, we will hear about it from some.

Learning from Jay Leno

This instinctive reaction to partisan news is right often enough to be self-reinforcing. We live in a highly secularized culture where politicians typically succeed by pleasing their supporters even at the expense of the common good or objective morality. 

The same is true of most of our media. Therefore, when we assume partisan motives, our assumption often proves to be correct.

But this is not an excuse for Christians to abdicate our calling to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). From the first century to the twenty-first, we have been the salt and light, the moral conscience and voice of biblical truth, for our world (Matthew 5:13–16). Our highest calling is not to win elections or support candidates and parties but to lead people to eternal life in Christ.

When we divert from this missional focus for partisan engagement, we lose credibility and influence with those who disagree with our politics. In this sense, we make the mistake Jay Leno accused late-night talk show hosts of making, pointing out that their political jokes appeal only to “half the audience.” He explained, “Why shoot for just half an audience all the time? You know, why not try to get the whole?”

What is true for late-night comedians is exponentially more true for those of us called to be Jesus’ witnesses to the world. Isn’t it?

“Speak evil of no one”

I’m not saying we should not have or even voice partisan opinions. But I am saying we should practice discernment when we do so, not assuming the worst of those with whom we disagree and therefore responding in ways that may be misinformed and further the divisiveness of our day.

I adamantly believe God is calling all Christians to be engaged in our culture and that he is calling more into public service than are answering the call. In addition, every believer is called to pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1–2), to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1), and to “pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (v. 7). Such “respect” and “honor” can extend to supporting political leaders whose leadership we affirm and opposing those we do not.

But we must not do so in ways that bring disrepute on our Lord. We are forbidden to slander others, no matter how much we disagree with them (Psalm 101:5; Proverbs 10:18). We are commanded, “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice” (Ephesians 4:31).

In fact, we are told “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people” (Titus 3:2). Take a moment to consider how different our culture would be if every Christian and every American obeyed just this one verse.

Albert Einstein and the fruit of the Spirit

Albert Einstein testified, “The ideas that have lighted my way have been kindness, beauty, and truth.” Christians of all people should be known for all three, for all three find their greatest source in the Spirit who inhabits and empowers us (Galatians 5:22–23).

Sharing kindness is not always easy, of course. Joseph Joubert observed, “Kindness is loving people more than they deserve.” That may be true, but if so, you and I are only giving others what we have received, since God obviously loves us more than we deserve.

Max Lucado wrote:

I choose kindness. I will be kind to the poor, for they are alone. Kind to the rich, for they are afraid. And kind to the unkind, for such is how God has treated me.

Is this how he has treated you?