No, Mr. President
In January 2009, evangelical pastor John Piper repeatedly yelled “No, Mr. President!” at Barack Obama from his pulpit.
Piper’s complaint was that Obama had recently made pro-abortion sentiments on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Piper’s words were heated. He called Obama “trapped and blind.”
Church reactions to Piper’s tone were consistently accepting. I never heard anyone say he had overstepped. Nobody seemed to think he had swerved from his lane, misused his pulpit or become too politicized. Nobody said he’d bought a false narrative, let the wrong media influences into his mind or drifted toward questionable theology. I never heard anyone say he was being divisive or should “just stick to the Bible.” We all recognized the verses he was standing on.
Piper taught me something that day—sometimes pastors rebuke presidents.
In my judgment, that occasion is here again. If Obama’s early 2009 was worth a “no” from Christian leaders, I believe Donald Trump’s early 2025 is worth one also, albeit for very different reasons. No choosiness allowed.
By so doing, I call no one to a specific party or vote. But I do call everyone to admit the true nature of our present chaos. I have no desire to add to the culture of overstatement and hostile words about the president. But neither do I wish to add my public silence to a moment of great confusion.
So my “no” to President Trump is below.
Like Piper, I use a biblical method to critique the president on a single issue. Unlike Piper, I critique a president to whom evangelicals are statistically committed.
So among my small readership, I can’t help but wonder if I should bank on the same reaction as Piper. Nobody in the church will say I’m overstepping, or swerving from my lane, or misusing my pulpit, or becoming too politicized. Nobody will think I’ve bought a false narrative, let the wrong media influences into my mind, or drifted toward questionable theology. Nobody will say I’m being divisive or should “just stick to the Bible,” because everyone will recognize the verses I’m standing on.
Right?
The Problem
I believe the president is practicing authoritarian activism.
To define terms, “authoritarian” means to operate as if you are not under any authority, but rather as if you are authority personified. And to be “activist” means to do it fast.
My thesis is simple: 1) the president does this and 2) the Bible (and the law) forbid it.
I’ll present my case and you be the judge.
“No” to Authoritarian Words
Here are three examples of authoritarianism in the president’s words.
The president posted on February 15, 2025, “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” It is relevant that this quote is often attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, the military imperialist who tore Europe apart until coalition armies finally contained him. Who you quote often shows your influences, and what you quote often shows your aspirations. But sources aside, the content itself is worse. In their plain sense, these words mean that Donald Trump sees his agenda as so important that it should define legality itself. He’s warning us he’s not going to bother “saving” America via the rules, if those rules prove to be too much of a slow-down. He’s playing a game of “whatever it takes” and he’ll decide what it takes, thank you.
Not long after this alarming statement, he upped the ante even further with the absurd (whether satirical or not), “Long live the king.”
And finally, he has hinted yet again at a third presidential term, saying that he may serve “not once, but twice, or three or four times.” That means, true to his promise to disregard the law, he cares nothing for the Constitutional prohibition of a president serving more than two terms.
None of these three examples are flukes or accidents. They are patterns. They are his way of speaking. And “out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks” (Luke 6:45), so there should be no doubt that he means it. He is telling us what’s in his heart, and I doubt we are misunderstanding him or taking him too literally.
There are several responses.
First, the word “save” is out of place. The claim to be able to save millions of people from circumstantial failure is wild hubris. The word “save” should especially clang in Christian ears, because the concept of “saving” is so central to our faith. (Trump’s “long live the king” post similarly claimed to have “saved” New York City by attempting to cancel a $9 toll for driving below 60th Street. The only salvation I know costed a cross, not $9.) The bottom line is that we don’t need a temporal savior to supplement our eternal one. For us, Jesus can handle both jobs. “I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior” (Isaiah 43:55). The president would do well to find a humbler vocabulary.
Second, Americans have no king. We are famous for this. Even if Trump’s “long live the king” could be proven to be satire (as his apologists immediately began to attempt), I would relax about one percent. The audacity to say it jokingly and the audacity to say it seriously are neighbors. Even if “long live the king” was a mere hollow provocation designed to agitate opponents, the desire to agitate opponents is itself proof of embarrassing immaturity, is it not? The New Testament says, “Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but think with sober judgment” (Romans 12:3). Trump’s hyperboles about his own greatness, however serious, and his childish antagonism of his enemies, are the antithesis of “sober.”
Third, the Scripture teaches that we are to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1). The highest legal authority in our land is the United States Constitution, and it states that no one may serve as president for more than two terms. Therefore when Donald Trump suggests that he’ll serve “not once, but twice, or three or four times,” he is openly suggesting something illegal. How can Christians “partner with lawlessness” (2 Corinthians 6:14)? How can we make this fit with the truth that “everyone must submit to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1; note, “everyone”)? That Trump gives himself a pass on this is obvious. That Christians also give him one is a disaster.
Fourth and finally, a biblical king was a student of the law, not the author of it. Every Old Testament king had to “write for himself in a book a copy of the law” (Deuteronomy 17:18). And why? So that “by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers” (Deuteronomy 18:19-20). Self-references to saviors and kings and third terms sure sound like a “heart lifted up above his brothers” to me.
Part of growing up is learning, “the rules apply to me, too.” Our president has not learned this yet. How could he? Impeachments don’t convict him, courts where he’s proven guilty don’t penalize him, and bloody insurrections don’t make people stop voting for him. The relationship between cause and effect in his life seems suspended. He (sadly and correctly) seems to believe he can do what he wants without fear of lost influence. Therefore, he does what he wants and seems happy to be understood in this way.
His words are authoritarian. I can’t find another honest way to interpret them.
And I can’t find another faithful response except “no.”
“No” to Authoritarian Actions
I believe the president also shows authoritarianism in his actions. Here is one example.
On February 5, President Trump signed an executive order to prevent "male competitive participation in women’s sports… as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth." The governor of Maine refused to comply with the order. And within a few days’ time in a public and official setting, the following interaction took place:
President Trump: “Are you not going to comply with [the order]?”
Governor Mills: “I’m complying with the state and federal laws.” (She means those that come from Congress.)
President Trump: “We are the federal law.” (He means the executive orders that come from his desk.)
President Trump: “Well you better do it…you better comply, because you’re not getting any federal funding at all if you don’t.”
Governor Mills: “See you in court.”
President Trump: “I look forward to that, that should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after, Governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.”
I intentionally chose this example because it highlights my complaint with Trump’s methods, not his goals. In this case, I happen to agree that “as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity and truth” biological males should not compete in women’s sports. I believe in the shared and universal dignity in both men and women who carry the image of God (Genesis 1:27-28), and it seems a reasonable application of biology that there be separate fields of athletic play. But I find Trump’s methods of achieving this goal abhorrent, because of the concentration of power he is assuming to get it done.
Remember the basics: the federal government has three branches. The Congress makes the law (so the legislature conceptually acts first), the President carries out the law (and thus the executive branch acts second), the Supreme Court interprets the law (and thus the judicial branch has the final say of which laws remain in force). This makes for an intentionally dispersed government to protect the citizenry from tyrants who do all three of these functions alone.
And yet rewatch these events. President Trump acts as legislature in his office on February 5, signing a new law. Then he acts as executive to coordinate a quick nationwide response. Then he acts as judiciary by holding an impromptu “court” to call a colleague to account for noncompliance and pronounce his own form of judgment on her. In other words, President Trump did all three governmental functions by himself within a week. And did it end well? No, he promised to starve the entire state of Maine’s young students of funding they need to be educated, and to end the career of his opponent for resistance to an order that was less than a week old.
Old forms of presidential activism would have included pressuring Congress or the courts. But the current president seems set on bypassing the entire machinery. (There are other critical structures that he seems to want to avoid—namely, a free press, which he will now bypass by choosing which pool reporters are allowed cover him.)
The Bible says, “Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed” (Proverbs 15:22). Who advises this president, truly? Who can tell him “no” and be unthreatened? I have doubts that there is any such person on the planet.
It is impossible to picture previous conservative heroes (Reagan) or progressive heroes (Obama) operating in this way. This is something new entirely.
It is authoritarianism. My answer is “no.”
“No” to Activist Speed
Finally, the issue of pace.
President Trump has launched such a blur of activity in the first month of his second term that even the above events, which are incredibly significant historical developments, are lost in the milieu. Even the most rabid watchdogs and diligent attorneys struggle to keep up. Neither friends nor foes can easily stay informed. It creates public fatigue of watching the circus and mining for facts.
The president seems to announce a massive idea per minute, ranging from how to relate to Russia and Europe, to what to do with Gaza, to what the body of water south of our country should be called, to whether DEI efforts have any merit, to how to take back the canal we gave Panama 26 years ago, to how to put tariffs on our trade partners, to how many genders there are, to…so much more.
Each of these is worth its own time, its own article, its own “yes” or “no.” But neither supporters nor critics can form an educated response before the next verbal earthquake hits.
And what does the Bible say about this kind of speed?
Nothing good. “Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way” (Proverbs 19:2). The president’s haste is undeniable. (Can you keep up?) His haste is driven by his desire, which far exceeds his knowledge. (Do you have adequate knowledge on all the above issues? How can he?)
He makes haste. And he will miss his way.
What should we say to a dangerously fast-moving president whose actions often run ahead of public awareness?
For me, it’s a “no.”
Bits of “Yes”
I have no doubt that some good will be done by this president. I think men and women competing against their own physical sex in collegiate sports is a natural and good thing. I also think the border chaos in my home state of Texas was unsustainable and now will be better controlled. I also think room for public religious dialogue will be preserved (though I pray not forced on the unwilling).
Some good will accompany the bad. This will be the constant whirlwind of the Trump era.
For example, this week I saw two incredibly different videos from President Trump’s social media accounts on the same day: 1) an AI-produced rendering of his vision for Gaza as a flashy real estate investment, complete with provocative dancers and a massive gold statue of himself and 2) a video of a cabinet meeting opening with a prayer saying, “Father, we humble ourselves before you…” while Trump sits, hands folded, respectful and observant as a choir boy.
So which is it? Will he move millions of impoverished refugees ruthlessly out of the way to turn the Holy Land into his own personal Monaco, offending the God who cares for the poor and punishes the oppressor (Psalm 14:6)? Or will he pray with his cabinet, inviting God’s help, and lower himself before the God who gives grace the humble (James 4:6)? Is he Nebuchadnezzar or David?
Evidently, he’ll present himself as both. Conflicting evidence is therefore inevitable.
That’s why I’m not saying every part of the administration’s work is destined to be bad. I’m saying that some of it is already so bad (i.e., the parts named above) that Christian leaders should say so loud and clear.
No Home on the Left
In critiquing the president in this way, I am also not endorsing the opposing political party. There are parts of the Christian faith that do not rest comfortably there either. For instance, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that human sexuality belongs in that venue. I believe that human life is priceless, both women and infants, so abortion except in the case of necessity to save a mother’s life (e.g., an ectopic pregnancy) is a grave wrong. I am no Christian nationalist, but I do believe my Christian faith should be invited to the public dialogue.
I am not under any illusions—these parts of my faith will never make me a welcome recruit for the American left.
My main message today is that my Christian faith does not let me rest comfortably with the American right as Trump has remade it.
Submission & Prayer
The Bible also says to “honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:17), to “be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1) and to “pray for kings and all who are in high positions” (1 Timothy 2:2). These I will do.
President Trump will receive no dishonor from me. My critique is not my hatred; it is my gift. “Reprove a wise man, and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8).
Honesty about the president’s failures does not mean I’m becoming an anti-institutional mudslinger who is governed by anger. I will pray for the president.
A Final Concern
I am a church planter in New York City. That means I am both a pastor and a missionary. Missiological concerns are ever-present to me. I want our faith to be attractive to people outside the church.
But how attractive can it be, when we overinvest in broken political leaders and then go conveniently silent about the dangers they create? Is it really apparent that we have the gospel message of Jesus Christ—and nothing else—as our goal? To a person far removed from church, how detectable is our sincerity?
I was asked by a graduate student this week what my concern was going forward regarding these things. I told her I was afraid our seemingly irrevocable permission slip for Trump’s behavior will make the church unattractive for future generations. I said, “I’m afraid that the more the church says ‘amen’ to Trump when we should say ‘no,’ the more people will say ‘no’ to Jesus when they should say ‘amen.’”
Every time the church crawls into bed with power and becomes its beneficiary, we lose credibility for centuries. Constantine’s conquering, the medieval crusades, and early modern colonialism all demonstrate what happens when Christianity is forced upon the unwilling—they stay unwilling, and we earn suspicion from their children’s children.
And so, my “no” to the president is here, to hopefully make more clear what people should be signing up for when they say “yes” to Jesus and the church. The Trump program isn’t it.
In truth, I hesitated about posting this article. Am I sure? Then a few hours ago the president destroyed the United States’ relationship with Ukraine, voices raised and all, further destabilizing a dangerously unstable world. Yes, I’m sure.
Authoritarian activism is happening, and it has earned my “no.”
It should earn yours, too.
