We all have blind spots.  Some are produced by vices, like drug addiction and alcoholism.  Others are produced by super-piety, the kind that makes the rest of us cringe.  Christianity Today, in an editorial calling for Trump's removal, fell into the second class of causes.  It was an embarrassment.

The editorial based its claim here:

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president's political opponents.  That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

How to reply to such nonsense?  Let's just take it as it is written. 

First, the case, if one can call it that, is far, far from ambiguous.  No statute was broken and none cited in the articles of impeachment.  No case has ever been so flimsy.  Clinton, in his impeachment process (which I opposed), lied to a grand jury and judge, a clear violation of the law, and Nixon obstructed justice, another clear violation of the law.  Trump has done nothing to merit impeachment.  It is odd that C.T. missed so badly here, unless the editor hates Trump, despite his assertion that he "loves" the president.

Second, there was no coercion of any Ukrainian, no quid pro quo, or anything close to that.  The president has a number of bureaucracies within the Executive Branch.  One of them is the Department of Justice, which oversees the FBI.  It was perfectly appropriate for the president to call on other nations to investigate a possible crime committed by an American citizen.  For one thing, Joe Biden may have violated the law when he is the one who asked Ukraine to sack a prosecutor who was looking into Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, where he had membership on the board, a job for which he was not qualified.  Did C.T. call for the impeachment of Biden, when the evidence is strong that a quid pro quo was involved?  No, because the editor said C.T. does not get involved in politics — except when it comes to the most egregious moral-lawbreaker in the history of America — possibly the world: Donald Trump, who apparently is so awful that no other politician can compare.

C.T. came across as super-pious and awful, in a corollary opposite way of how the Dems are super-pious, but in their vices. 

The editorial was wrong on the facts and wrong in its exaggerated moral assessment of Pres. Trump. 

James Arlandson has a new website, renewal-theology.com, where he has posted Is Our Sin Nature Embedded in Our Mammal Nature? and Do I Really Know Jesus? Thirty Truths about His Life