What I’ve Been Saying

As we return now from Easter, I’m trying to avoid doing an “I told you so,” but for eight weeks I have been saying this Administration’s behaviors would have consequences because judges and Justices do not live in a vacuum.

When the Trump Administration admitted in Court that it had made an administrative error in deporting Mr. Garcia and then simply refused to attempt to bring the man back to go through the proper deportation process, the Trump Administration was picking a fight it thinks it can win, but probably cannot.

Contrary to the claims of many on the right, it simply is not true the Administration has to give every illegal alien a due process hearing in court to remove them. Many of those it is deporting have already been ordered removed. The Supreme Court itself has said previously that when the Executive decides to deport an illegal alien, there is little the courts can do other than make sure the proper process is followed.

But by removing Mr. Garcia as the Trump Administration did, the Trump Administration offered prima facie proof that it did not follow the process. Then, in a scene of mockery, the Presidents of the United States and El Salvador in the Oval Office did a song and dance routine of “I have no idea who can possibly retrieve this man.”

If you’re going to rub the judicial system’s nose in their powerlessness to return a man the Executive admits the Executive removed in error, do not expect the judicial system to take it lightly. Except them to make it harder to remove anyone. Duh.

The Supreme Court has blocked further deportations of the illegal Venezuelan gang members and others. Only Alito and Thomas dissented.

Of course this was going to happen.

At the heart of the matter is a simple thing — the Executive gets to deport illegal aliens. But sending them to a detainment facility where the Executive abandons any pretense of caring what happens next is a bridge too far for the judicial system and it frankly should be for everyone, though I realize that is asking too much.

Set your emotions aside on this, please.

The Executive has not sent illegal aliens to their home countries. The Executive has sent them to a detainment facility in one country where there is no clarity on how, when, or even if they will be released.

And the President of the United States sent one of those men there in error.

You may be fine with it. Don’t expect the courts to be.

I have said repeatedly that the behavior of the Administration will impact the Court’s decisions. There is a lot on the line for conservatives. In the prior Trump Administration, twice the Administration lost in Court because it did things it had the power to do, but did those things outside proper, lawful paths to do those things. See e.g. the Muslim ban and the census question on citizenship.

The Roberts Court loves process. Amy Coney Barrett loves process.

I suspect the Supreme Court will ultimately allow the Trump Administration to do much of what it wants to do because, again, process. But the Court is going to slow it down now because the Trump Administration has admitted to an error that it now claims it cannot undo all while publicly misrepresenting what the Court did and did not ask of it.

There will be consequences. It has been obvious. And you can be mad at the court system, but it was never wise to rub the judicial system’s nose in it.

Part of the aim of the Administration was to be so rapid and extreme that many illegal aliens chose to self-deport. Largely, that has worked. But now, the courts will slow it all down because the Administration showed arrogance when it should have showed it would fix what it admitted was an error. Except that to serve as a disincentive to self-deport.

Had Mr. Garcia been returned promptly, ironically, he’d probably already have been deported back to El Salvador. But now, because of the failure to act, the Trump Administration has cut off their nose to spite their face.

But hey, at least MAGA can complain about the judges. So there’s that. Many relish the opportunity to be the victim.

Put more bluntly here at the end — a lot of vocal Trump supporters are professing Jesus with their lips, but have decided to behave exactly as the post-modern secular left. For four years, the left attacked the courts and sought to discredit the Supreme Court. Now, these people on the right will do the same, the truth be damned. The ends justify the means. Humility is out the window.

And all Trump had to do was bring Garcia back. Just a bit of humility from the Executive Branch could have pre-empted all of this.

Rebuking Christianity Today

There are many ideas out there about Christ, his crucifixion, and his resurrection. Not all of those ideas need air time.

I would submit that Christianity Today giving air time to a frivolous idea at Easter, at time secular media notoriously tries to undermine the faith, is a terrible sign that something is rotten at Christianity Today.

Daniel Silliman gives coverage to one “evangelical” theologian who does not believe the Romans actually nailed Jesus to the cross.

Jeffrey P. Arroyo García, an evangelical Bible scholar who teaches at Gordon College, thinks maybe there weren’t any nails.

“The word used there, stauroo, just means ‘to hang on a cross,’” García told Christianity Today. “But it doesn’t give the method of how they hang, right? Maybe the reticence is telling.”

Closely reading the Bible, looking at the long historical record of Roman crucifixion, and examining the archaeological evidence, García has come to the conclusion that the Crucifixion might have been done with ropes. While Christians from Emperor Constantine’s mother to documentary filmmakers today have searched for relics of the “true nails” and many have meditated on the iron piercing flesh, the nails might just be the stuff of legend.

García wrote about it for the spring issue of Biblical Archaeology Review in an article titled “Nails or Knots—How Was Jesus Crucified?”

“I don’t stand and say this, definitively, is how it happened,” García told CT. “I basically find it interesting. It could be there were nails, or it could be that there weren’t nails.”

So why, Christianity Today, would you give air time to doubts about the crucifixion when even the scholar himself is wishy washy on it? This was an editorial choice at Easter. It speaks poorly of the decision making and editorial processes of the publication to air something like this at Easter, particularly given how milquetoast the claimant is.

What is not milquetoast about the claims? Scripture.

Psalm 22 states, “Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet.”

Luke 24:38-40 states, “He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.”

John 20:24-27 states, “Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.””

Colossians 2:13-14 state, “When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.”

Garcia dismisses the Gospel of John as a later account. Never mind that the first generation of post-Apostolic fathers like Polycarp and Ignatius, both of whom studied under John, confirmed that the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John and was an eye witness to the resurrection.

That leaves the question of why Christianity Today, which professes to believe in the Bible, chose to run an article that attempts to undermine (badly) a key part of the story of the crucifixion.

I am left to wonder if Christianity Today is still committed to Billy Graham’s founding mission — covering the world as Bible believing Christians. Running this article at Easter was an editorial choice — a poor choice from its editors. It’s the choice a secular editor at the New York Times would make and that is a damning indictment of Christianity Today.

By the way, the most damning thing about all of this is that the actual article was published a week ago, but Christianity Today chose to push it out on social media over Easter Weekend, suggesting they wanted the attention.