Hand Gestures
Why Trump's Bible-less oath and Musk's "awkward gesture" matter
Swearing In
We all know the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump, is a controversial figure. To say so is an understatement. His character, methods, and policies are polarizing in a way the country hasn’t seen in a very long time. He hasn’t merely garnered support for political power, he has built a brand around himself and his promises. Perhaps the United States, capitalist society that we are, was primed to fall under the sway of a businessman, someone who could sell a brand whether or not the brand itself was successful (click here for an incomplete list of Trump’s failed business ventures). At the center of this controversy is his (proclaimed) Christianity. Alongside his wide appeal to conservative Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox, he has released his own edition of the Bible,1 and during his inauguration, claimed that God saved him to “make America great.”
Before this speech, Trump was sworn into office by Chief Justice John Roberts without placing his left hand on the Bible. Some have blame Roberts for moving to quickly. Some have blamed Melania Trump, who held the Bibles on which Trump was to swear, for not moving quickly enough. No one has blamed Trump. It is not required for a president to swear the oath on a copy of the Bible, but it is a long tradition. While it is unclear whether or not the earliest presidents swore on a copy of Holy Scripture, legend has it that George Washington was, and since Abraham Lincoln, only two presidents did not do this, Theodore Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, both who took office in sudden circumstances, namely the assassination of the current president. Does it matter that Trump did not swear on the Bible?
Heartfelt Salute
After Trump’s speech, at the Capitol One Arena, Elon Musk gave an elated victory speech to a cheering crowd. Even watching it on video days later, the energy in the room is electric. Musk opens by saying, “This is what victory feels like!” He’s elated that the US apparently chose the right person to save civilization and says to the crowd, “Thank you for making it happen. Thank you.” Then slams his right hand to his chest and throws it up into the air at about a 45-degree angle. He then turns to the crowd behind him and does the same with a bit less enthusiasm. Turning back to the mic, he puts his hand on his chest again and says, “My heart goes out to you.”
The internet was instantly abuzz with people asking whether or not they had actually witnessed what just happened, with people aghast and dumbfounded at what appeared to be a Nazi salute. As one would expect, Musk’s fan club rallied around him. People said he was just excited, or that he was grabbing his heart and throwing it to the crowd because just after doing the “awkward gesture,” as the ADL2 called it, he said, “My heart goes out to you!” Others blamed the gesture on his autism. Musk was quick, not so much to defend himself, but to go after those going after him. He accused Senator Ocasio-Cortez of having reached “Stage 5 of” of the so-called Trump derangement syndrome, being “fully unhinged.” Three days after the inauguration, he was making puns from the names of prominent Nazi figures, much to the chagrin of the ADL. Even if it was an accident, does it matter that Elon Musk performed a Nazi salute in front of cheering crowds of Republicans and conservatives?
Symbols Matter
Trump, at the time of this writing, has not publicly commented on the fact that he did not swear on the Bible, and I can’t help but wonder whether or not he’s happy to let Justice Roberts and Melania take the heat for the moment. If Musk’s “gesture” was truly benign, he could have said at any point, “You know what, you’re right. It looks like a Nazi salute. I shouldn’t have done that. It won’t happen again.” Instead, he’s dug his heels into the ground and made his gesture everyone else’s problem. He’s been unwilling to take any responsibility. I asked at the end of each section above if the gestures made by Trump and Musk mattered, and I want to say that they do. Even if it simply slipped Trump’s mind that he should be swearing on a Bible, even if Musk was acting out of excitement and unintentionally threw his heart to the crowd in a move that looked like a Nazi salute, the fact remains that each of them embodied highly symbolic actions, and that symbolism is not empty.
That neither man can simply admit they made an oversight (if indeed these were oversights), adds to the problematic nature of what took place on inauguration day. Any (healthy) married person will admit that sometimes they communicate the wrong thing even if they say or do exactly what they meant to say or do. My wife and I try to be very open with one another when either of us have hurt the other. We tell the other what happened that caused the pain or frustration. Often, there is a misunderstanding and miscommunication happening simultaneously, and it is our practice to first acknowledge that the other person is not wrong for feeling hurt. “I’m sorry that what I did or said hurt your feelings.” Then, we say something like, “It was not my intention to hurt you when I said or did this. What I meant was…” and this is followed by an explanation.3 I bring that up to say that what Trump could have done is acknowledge he broke with a long Presidential tradition that is ostensibly important to the millions of Christians who voted for him because they believe he will restore the country to some version of a Christian past. What Musk could have done is admit that he did the salute, and apologize for it, and explain what he was actually doing. To this date, I don’t believe he has actually tried to clarify anything, but continues to act immaturely toward those who are offended by the action.
I’m not ready to say either of these men actually did these actions on purpose, and though I am more prone to believe that Musk did, I can’t say that with confidence. What I can say, though, is that in light of where things stand, both of these moments were saturated in meaning.
Trump has openly embraced the Evangelical vote and presented himself as the Godsend for which they were looking. Though the complexities of managing and leading a country are myriad, Trump’s approach to the “border crisis” is anything but Christian. He continues to foment fear in the minds of the public, claiming that Mexico and other South American countries are purposefully sending criminals and the mentally unstable with no corraborating evidence. In fact, the studies that have been done show that undocumented immigrants do not commit any more crime than US citizens, and some studies suggest that crime among immigrants might be lower. His approach to abortion, which has been the trumpet call of Christian conservatives since the 80s, was not actually to overturn abortion law in the US, but rather repeal Roe v. Wade. Conservatives may or may not think that was a good move, but the result has not lead to a national overhaul of abortions, though some states have made it exceedingly difficult or banned them. My own state, Missouri, which outside of Kansas City and St. Louis, is red through and through, voted mostly red along politicians and policies except when it comes to abortion access. His overturning of DEI initiatives in the US Government are being applauded by conservatives, but without recourse to any data suggesting DEI hurts companies or programs. There are massive funding cuts to crucial medical research which will likely lead to huge gaps in potentially life-saving research. Finally, pulling out the the Paris Agreement, expanding the use of oil and coal for energy, and keeping his promise to “drill, baby, drill,” will continue to have horrific, life-threatening impacts on the world God charged us to care for. He has yet to implement a single policy that is consistent with Christian Scripture. That he did not swear on Christian Scripture may not have been on purpose, but it is consistent with his approach to both life and politics.
Musk is an interesting figure to consider. He’s not a politician, but I struggle to remember or think of a time when a businessman was so front and center in the political games our nation plays. It’s not that I don’t think businesses are lining the pockets of politicians and parties in order to influence US policy, but Musk is front and center in this whole thing. His salute, purposeful or not, carries weight. Twitter, now known as X, has become a petri-dish for extreme- and alt-right ideologies since he took over. These same ideologues—these very in-the-open neo-nazis and white nationalists—were excited to see Musk perform such a meaningful gesture in front of the nation and the world. Musk has been vocal in his support of the far-right AfD party in Germany and the nationalist Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni. All the while, it has been demonstrated that he has tasked X engineers to manipulate the algorithm to ensure people were seeing his posts. He has claimed he wanted to buy Twitter to restore free speech, and while it may be that fewer people socially “punished” on the site, Musk is ensuring that at least his speech is more free than others. When a person is a vocal supporter of nationalist politicians and is loved by far- and extreme-right ideologues, a Nazi salute carries high symbolic power, whether or not it was done on purpose.
Enter the Bishop
In his inauguration speech, Trump appealed to the expansionist doctrine of Manifest Destiny, claiming he would lead this nation of “explorers, builders, innovators, entrepreneurs, and pioneers” into a growing economy and growing territory, including Mars. He said that the “spirit of the frontier is written in our hearts,” the “our” in this sentence being, presumably, “[O]ur American ancestors,” who also “pushed thousands of miles through a rugged land of untamed wilderness…crossed deserts, scaled mountains, braved untold dangers, won the Wild West…” What he failed to acknowledge was the fact that for many millions of United States citizens, terms like '“pioneers” and “Manifest Destiny” carry a different, and malevolent meaning. The land wasn’t considered an “untamed wilderness” by First Nations peoples, but by those who expanded the colonialist project into their ancestral lands, killing, pillaging, and raping along the way. Were Black slaves pushing for a greater USA? Certainly, none of my ancestors were on the frontier trails, Spanish or Indigenous. This appeal, then, was not for all of this nation’s citizens, though flacid attempts at inclusion were made. The last two weeks have shown how inclusive Trump and his administration truly are.
The day after his speech, Trump, Vice-President Vance, and their families gathered with many other officials and people in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, otherwise known as the Washington National Cathedral, for the prayer service for the inauguration. Presiding over the service was the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, bishop of Washington in the Episcopal Church. In her sermon, Bishop Mariann called for unity in the nation, acknowledging that unity is tenuous and must be found through hard work, humility, and the commitment of citizens to understand that not everyone is the same nor believes the same things. Nothing in the sermon was inflammatory and, indeed, was rather innocuous when compared to things that came from the mouth of Jesus or the Old Testament Prophets. She ended her 15-minute homily by directly addressing the President.
“Let me make one final plea, Mr President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.”
Her plea for mercy was for “gay, lesbian, and transgender” children who question how this administration will impact their lives. Her plea for mercy was for the undocumented immigrants who fill the meek roles that prop up the nation and allow it to function, as well as for those children whose parents are at risk of deportation. She did not ask for “leftist” or “liberal” or “Democrat” policies to be put in place. She did not ask the government to fund transitions or hormone therapy. She did not ask Trump to not address border policies. She asked for one simple thing—Mercy.
This one word was the thing that neither Donald Trump nor JD Vance could abide, attested at first by their looks of disdain as they sat under the Bishop’s lectern. Later that night, Trump said on Truth Social that the “so-called Bishop” and “her church owe[d] the public an apology.” Instead of citing any kind of resources or stats, he once again appealed to the alleged “crime wave” brought into the United States. He also, unlike Bishop Mariann, leveled ad hominem attacks against her, saying her request of him was “nasty in tone,” accusing her of being boring, uninspiring, uncompelling, and unintelligent. If you listen to the sermon, there is nothing in the way Bishop Mariann talks that is nasty in tone. She is calm, speaks softly, and only at the end asks for mercy.
Trump accuses her of being a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater,” who “brought her church into the World (sic) of politics in a very ungracious way.” Again, I would challenge anyone to listen to her sermon and ask whether or not it was ungracious. The irony, for me at least, lies in audacity of a man who speaks with the kind of crassness and lack of empathy that Trump displays, who claims some kind of messianic call—a la being God’s chosen man to lead the US into a golden age—calling Bishop Mariann’s appeal to their common religion ungracious. The ungraciousness from Trump’s post on Truth Social is only one example of the hypocrisy.
Those advocating for any kind of Christian Nationalism, whether it’s merely socio-cultural influence or a new christendom, might do well to remember there is a long history in the church of bishops confronting emperors, and in ways more “ungracious” than this. The Bishop’s action of speaking a word of peace, grace, unity, and mercy is not unbefitting her office, and is in fact in keeping with her sacred duty.4 One such instance took place around AD 390. Emperor Theodosius I called for a massacre on the people of Thessalonica, and upon learning of this, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan and spiritual advisor to Theodosius, forbid the emperor from coming to the church or receiving the Eucharist (Communion) until Theodosius had demonstrably repented of his actions. Nothing in Bishop Mariann’s sermon comes anywhere close to this intensity.
Faithful Witness
Symbols matter. We participate in imaginative ecosystems whether we realize it or not, whether we mean to or not. Again, I cannot say for sure whether or not Trump meant to swear into office without his hand on Scripture, or whether or not Musk meant to sieg heil a victorious, cheering crowd, but these things did happen and it matters that they did, particularly in light of the goings on since Trump took office. Bishop Mariann’s presence in the pulpit, asking one of the most powerful men on the planet to have mercy on those with so little political power carries its own symbolism. What does it mean that an ordained woman of the church was able to shake up entire institutions simply by asking for mercy “in the name of our God?” What is being communicated in the symbolism of JD Vance’s glares, Trump’s posting, and a slew of misogynistic tweeting?
And what does this all mean for us, as disciples of Jesus Christ? We may not all sit on a bishop’s throne, or indeed even acknowledge that such a thing exists. We may not all sit behind a politicians desk or stand behind a pulpit, indeed, we may not all feel a particular desire to type out our public and political theologies on a blogging website and send it out into the world. We all, though, sit at the feet of Jesus as his disciples,5 and therefore we all are called to heed and obey the commands of Jesus. This is where I once again urge you toward the Sermon on the Mount and challenge you to really embrace them, to truly embody and practice them.
The Christian who puts to practice the Sermon on the Mount is also acting symbolically. This is why Jesus exhorts his disciples to let their light shine openly in the world, that those in the world “may see [their] good works and glorify [their] Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). The Christian who reconciles with those he’s wronged or cut off his hand instead of giving into lust, the disciple who gives to those who ask or loves her enemies symbolizes the kingdom of heaven on earth. They bring the future reign of Jesus into the present. They become signs of a life that’s only possible under the leadership of Jesus Christ. The commands transcend our political parties and we are obligated to obey them regardless of what our parties or our government says about them. The Christian is bound to the wider teaching of the New Testament, but when Jesus tells his disciples that a tree is known by it’s fruit (Matt. 7:15-20), contextually, he was talking about the commands he had just given.
If the Sermon on the Mount identifies what good fruit looks like, when we look at the three people I’ve mentioned in this story, where do we see good fruit? “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit… Thus, you will know them by their fruit” (Matt. 7:18, 20).
The next four years6 are likely to test our Christian witness in ways we haven’t known in this country in a long time, if ever. I don’t mean through persecution, but more through the temptation to abandon the way of Jesus for political expediency. We will be tempted to be pulled more to the extremes on the left and right, all the while Jesus extends hands toward us and says, “Come, follow me.”
Music by Clavier-Music
I say “edition” rather than “version” because, as far as I’m aware, he has not asked for any changes to the text itself. Rather, this is a copy of the King James Version with a “handwritten chorus to ‘God Bless The USA’, (sic) The US Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and The Pledge of Allegiance” all printed inside. Of note, the KJV is in the public domain so he does not need to pay to license this admittedly beautiful, but outdated translation of Scripture.
ADL stands for Anti-Defamation League, and organization started to combat antisemitism. You can find out more on their website, https://www.adl.org/
I realize I’m communicating this as if we have this down perfectly, and that we are able to resolve all problems with these simple exercises. Sometimes that’s the case, but not always. Sometimes we have to take time to actively listen to the other, and we have to choose to trust that the other truly did not intend to hurt the other. Sometimes there is more at stake than a miscommunication, and we have to take the time to work all that out, and she’s much better at this than I am.
I say this as someone with profound theological disagreements with Bishop Mariann and who is quite uncomfortable with the state of the Episcopalian Church at large.
I understand that not everyone who reads this may be a Christian, but I do write this Substack primarily for Christians, and my appeals, theological as they are, are meant to help Christians navigate the complex world of the United States in the early 21st century.
And beyond!
This was beautifully written, and extremely sensibly as well. These topics (from mercey, to the current immigration situation and how it's impacted communities in the Midwest already, to the overall political climate) are rightfully topics that produce emotions. Or in my opinion, should produce emotions. That being said, there's nothing in this article that doesn't feel thoughtful, deliberate, and sincere, in the most sensibly approached manner.
As an outsider, it's not my lane to take a side on the "real Christians" debate thar pops up on social media. I do have two thought on it, as a Jewish person.
One one side,which seems to be your position in the article, I think the folks have a reasonable point that if one adheres closely to what's widely considered the teachings of Yeshu, then that should dictate a certain approach on basic humanity, and this also teaches and promotes treating others kindly. On this I am surprised there's any controversy, because Christian Gospels are not hard to locate. Often passages about the poor in Christian Gospels, are quite and concise, and clear. Why some Christians find some parts more important than others is odd to me. Especially considering how few actual words of Yeshu in the Christian Gospels that scholars attribute to him. It's very little, so one would think every word would be given tremendous weight. But alas. When right wing Christians, use their scripture to back certain legislation, do they use the words of Yeshu? Never.
No, they use Christian versions of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, and often mistranslations at that. As is often the culprit, I find nomatter the religion, those with a good understanding and solid education(a knowledge of theirvown scriptures, the hist of the scriptures to an extent, badic theology behind the scripture)of their own religion practice it more faithfully. Or is my impression of my own religion, yours, and others is that religious education only makes great religious people better and often more thoughtful. Education is always so important in any area, but religion education is so crucial, because all of us should make the most informed religion choices we can imo.
Lastly, I'm glad you didn't mire much into the "real Christian" debate. One, because you have far more interesting things to say and think about in the article. It touches on it but from a different more genuine angle than I usually see on socials. I.e, saying "a real Christian" wouldn't do something bad. I wish that waa true. The Crusades, the Inquistion, countless pogroms throughout Europe. Those were all performed by very real Christians. Just as some of the most cruel people in the political climate, are very much active at their churches and places of worship. Confronting and dealing with the worst of our own ranks is often, I think, the hardest thing to deal with. I have no clear answers on how we deal with that within each of our religions, because the problem exists in all of them, in similar ways.
Really well written,Joshua. Well articulated, and communicated.
It is certainly true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Like you I was disappointed that Trump did not take the oath with his hand on the Bibles. I was watching in real time and it seemed Justice Roberts started the oath process before Melania arrived in position with the Bibles. This was especially a loss given the historic, family legacy value of his mother's Bible. I recently served on a jury in a heavy criminal court case at our local county court. Witnesses did not swear on a Bible to tell the truth. They merely raised their right hand and repeated the oath. I asked a bailiff about that and he said that Bibles had not been used for a long time. I don't know more history of why and when that happened but was sorry to learn it. I assume it was related to a multicultural attempt to not favor any religion. We can either denigrate or idolize symbols and icons but should be careful that we don't "throw baby out with bathwater." As the eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson says in a different context, something does not have to be perfect to be good. A still picture is a slice of life that captures a second in time, without even visual (not to mention historical) context. We have very little patience for seeking broader understanding of a problem. And even less self-restraint and humility to withhold judgement pending the other's perspective. No ordinary person has time to study 360 degrees of an issue. Much less the desire to do so. And so we give great weight to pictures. A bit of caution is all I am suggesting.