Recently, we have seen a growing body of statements taking evangelical Christians to task, by way of moral condemnation, for voting for Donald Trump in the first place, then continuing to support him since his election.  A significant portion of this moral condemnation and judgment comes from other evangelicals of a more Democratic Party persuasion, along with the usual secularized voices seeing a political opportunity to disparage the Trump support base.  Among the more sensational of these voices is the retiring editor of Christianity Today magazine, Mark Galli, who insists on Trump's removal from office on the basis of Trump's lack of moral standing.  He has been joined in expressing this sentiment by popular Christian speaker Beth Moore.

Another lesser known voice, but fully in the genre, is that of Dr. Jeffrey Haggray of the American Baptist USA Home Mission Society, who calls for every "decent" person in that denomination (politically a 50-50 split among congregants nationally) to join his own voice in condemnation of Donald Trump.  Dr. Haggray, be it noted, implicitly assigns the status of indecency to just about half of his denomination's members on the basis that they have a different political view of things from his.

It is tempting to see the veritable work of the Devil himself in getting Christians to point fingers at others because of varying political allegiances, a deception cited by the British evangelical writer Harry Blamires in his book The Christian Mind and by C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters.  Anything to get Christians off the beam of the faith's unique power to address the fundamental fact of human existence — death, judgment, destiny — will do, even if it means positing the tacit approval of law-breaking deceptions in the nation's law enforcement and intelligence operations; egregious lies offered up via media minions of "the Resistance"; or the known, serial moral and ethical failings of the candidate who, against all expectations, managed to lose the election to Mr. Trump in the first place.

At this point I'll invoke a principle of understanding these matters that remains pretty much out of view, but it is something especially pertinent to Christian involvement, and that is the remarkable and luminous imagery set forth by Jesus himself: "why are you so concerned with the speck in your brother's eye when you have a log hanging out of your own?" (Matthew 7:3).  This statement is the classic indictment of the practice of the double standard and the psychological projection of one's own failings onto others and the perception of theirs.  It applies in the arena here considered in spades.

A Christian critique of the morality of political leaders is legitimate.  What is at issue here is not the action of doing so, but the exclusive, one-sided aim of the concern.  Although it may be argued that Trump is the sole target of moral condemnation owing to the fact that he won, and therefore deserves special scrutiny, this is a weak position to take.  Trump's opponent and her own associates remain active, and their voices are heard.  And looming in the background is the question: what, in 2016, was the alternative?  The implicit position of voices like that of Mr. Galli and Dr. Haggray cited above is that there was a true moral choice to be made, that a Christian conscience was violated in one case of voting (Trump), but in the other, there was, well, no real issue.  Let it go.  Your Christian conscience remains unseared, uncorrupted, if you voted for Mrs. Clinton (or intend to do so for Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, etc.).  You're safe and still saved.  The foolishness of this position, be it tacit or overtly embraced, is revealed to anyone with a working knowledge of the history, career, and actions of Mrs. Clinton.

Enter in Jesus's imagery of the eye, the speck, and the log.

While the Christian voices in the "Resistance" incessantly accuse Mr. Trump of just about every evil, there is a question as to whether this results from anything other than pure political orientation, fueled by uncritical and often frantic commentary from players in the television industry, themselves proving to be little more than "Resistance" mouthpieces.  But the real issue, especially for Christian voters, revolves around "hate."  It has been my personal observation that the accusations of Trump's "hate" often come from people who are, themselves and despite their self-proclaimed advocacy of "love," brimming with animosity, anger, judgmentalism, and...well, hate.

One sees this in the nature of the "Resistance" movement.  I suppose that former presidents have been objects of vilification, slander, anger, hatred, and dehumanizing rhetoric (Lincoln and FDR certainly were), but in my lifetime (born 1940), what we are seeing today is pretty unique.  Consider the outlandish claim that Donald Trump is an aspiring "dictator."  If, indeed, he is so, he is a fool.  Here is a person who has, arrayed against him (not just his policies, but his person and family as well) every major institution of American society, including most of the news media, the publication industry, the world of arts and entertainment, higher education and the public school establishments (all of which dictators routinely control), not to mention politically weaponized people in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, and NSA.  The accusation of Trump's "dictatorship" status is, given these realities, an egregious lie.  But this is just part of a larger picture of aggressive vilification of personhood, extending even to attacks on the president's 15-year-old son, his wife, and by implication the character of millions of people, carried out by the various forces of "Resistance," which includes exhortations by elected officials to verbally and physically harass, in public spaces, people associated with Trump or his administration; property theft and destruction; and violations of law by public officials.

There exists, then, a manifest culture of hate and lawlessness, and this culture is what drives the "Resistance."  My question for the finger-pointing Christians who ape the "Resistance" rhetoric and give tacit approval (if by nothing other than silence): How do you, as a Christian, justify your participation in it?  Please explain yourself.  We who support Mr. Trump have been asked to explain ourselves, and those explanations have been and are being offered (see, for example, Dennis Prager on the issues).  It's time for your turn.  Move the log.