Waiting for Aslan

I ran across this recently:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/01/nikabriks-candidate

I'm not a regular reader of First Things. I'm only became aware of this article because Victor Reppert plugged it. A few observations:

1. Many Trump critics are obsessed with the fact that many evangelicals or "white evangelicals" voted for Trump. They can't let it go. They're trapped in that timewarp.

For them, this is the great evangelical betrayal. The great evangelical sellout. They don't listen to defenses. They assume that any proposed justification is just a rationalization. It's all about power. They can't entertain the possibility that some evangelicals might have principled reasons to vote for him. It isn't possible to have an intelligent dialogue with critics like that. 

2. However, for rational people, assessing Trump is a multi-stage process. Rational people leave themselves open to reassessing a position in light of new evidence. In the case of Trump there are roughly three phases:

i) When he ran in the primaries, there are two criteria: 

a) His statements and behavior as a private citizen. 

b) Comparing him to his Republican competitors. How did he stack up in terms of ideology, credibility, and electability vis-a-vis his rivals for the nomination? 

Electability is necessarily speculative, since we don't know in advance what will happen. It's an educated guess. 

ii) When he ran in the general election, the Democrat nominee–Hillary Clinton–was the major basis of comparison. The major criterion.  

iii) And now we have the Trump presidency. Obviously we couldn't gauge his presidential performance ahead of time. So nowadays, the policies of the Trump administration are the logical basis of comparison. That's the criterion. And it's not just about Trump–but about his administration in general. 

It's obsolete to keep harping on the past–because we make assessments and decisions based on the information we have at any given time. In the nature of the case, we now have information that wasn't available before he became president. Moreover, the information we now have is more directly relevant. Past considerations have been superseded by more timely, more salient evidence. 

3. It's immature to use The Chronicles of Narnia as a moral template, but since that's on the table I'll discuss it. One question is what is ethical framework in the universe of Narnia. The other question is the real-world analogy. Let's start with the first question. Are Narnians obligated to wait for someone–anyone–to respond to Susan's horn rather than making military alliances with what's at hand? What about the horn?

"Susan, Eve's Daughter," said Father Christmas. "These are for you," and he handed her a bow and a quiver full of arrows and a little ivory horn. "You must use the bow only in great need," he said, "for I do not mean you to fight in the battle. It does not easily miss. And when you put this horn to your lips; and blow it, then, wherever you are, I think help of some kind will come to you."  The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, chap. 10.

i) That's not worded as a guarantee. Is Father Christmas infallible? Is that something you can stake your life on? It's certainly better than nothing. But does it mean you're supposed to do nothing to defend yourself? 

ii) Aslan didn't make that promise.

iii) And it's not a promise that Aslan will come to the rescue.  

iv) Do the Narnians have a doctrine of the afterlife? How much do Narians have to lose? Are there eschatological compensations if the villains win?  

Even if, in the Narnian universe, there's a heaven and hell, has that been revealed to Narnians? Is that something they can bank on? What's the religion of Narnia? There is no Narnian Bible. It's rather like the folkloric religion of the patriarchs. Occasional encounters with the Almighty. Oral tradition. 

So it's unclear, within the worldview of Narnia, that they have a duty to pin all their hopes on someone responding to the horn. That's not equivalent to waiting for Aslan. 

4. As for the analogy–what's the analogy? That if we're patient, a deus ex machina will save our bacon? 

But there's no promise that God will intervene–as an alternative to taking matters into our own hands. This isn't like Yahweh making a covenant with Israel: so long as Israel remains faithful, God will protect her from her enemies. Rather, we must play the hand the providence dealt us. To say Trump voters were tired of waiting for Aslan is like some charismatics who refuse to take a deathly ill child to the doctor. They think that's faithless. Their piety may be well-intentioned, but it's theologically uninformed.  

5. No doubt it's wrong in the moral universe of Narnia to revive the White Witch. That's a kind of devil's pact. But is Donald Trump equivalent to the White Witch? That requires an argument–not an assertion.