Evangelical Thuggary

If you’ve read my brief introduction to my blog, you are aware my background is (or was) evangelical. When I first woke up to the realization that trouble was brewing in the evangelical camp, I did not know where this knowledge was going to lead me. The current culture wars that were being waged by the Religious Right seemed over the top mean spirited. As a concerned evangelical I thought there must be a way to better present the love of God for humanity. Having gone through the sexual revolution of the 60’s followed by the Moral Majority’s reaction in the 70’s and 80’s, I realized that there was a pattern here.

In both cases, the hard right conservatives within evangelicalism pushed for political control, both within evangelicalism and within the American legal system, drowning out more moderate voices within evangelicalism. It was becoming increasingly difficult to separate neo-fundamentalism from evangelicalism as a whole. As a result, I wanted to understand more of what it meant to be evangelical. So a few years back I somewhat timidly decided to step outside the evangelical “bubble” and get third party perspectives on the movement, especially the unique American manifestation of it.

The first books I read were “American Apocalypse, A History of Modern Evangelism” by Matthew Avery Sutton, and “God’s Own Party, The Making of the Christian Right” by Daniel K. Williams. It was an eye-opener. The history revealed was nothing like the rosy narrative of evangelicalism I had been taught. But it rang true as I had actually experienced a great deal of it coming of age in the 60’s, I had simply submerged it under the more flattering presentation of my chosen tribe.

I soon realized I was going to have to set all my beliefs on the table and begin to examine all in the light of the gospel. At this point I was still very much an evangelical, just a very concerned one. Then, when the Christian Bakery in Oregon refused to bake a wedding cake for the lesbian couple hit the news in 2013, red flags went up. Mind you, at this point I was somewhat typical of most evangelicals: SS marriage was not “Biblical marriage” in my thinking. But the thought of Christians refusing to serve others seemed so anti-Christian. Serving others, even one’s enemies, is so central to the story of Jesus, I could not wrap my brain around how anyone calling themselves a Christian could treat others that way. It also brought up memories of a time past when other Christians declared “we don’t serve your kind here.”

So the last 5 or 6 years has been a gradual move away from evangelicalism to a more inclusive, less judgmental faith in Christ. This was never my original intent, but after a few years I realized I had so little in common now with the tribe I had grown up in, that I was now outside that tribe. This has been confirmed over and over in my interactions since with evangelicals. I have dealt with trolls and bullies, Judaizers and self righteous bigots, my interactions, when they find out I am progressive, are seldom pleasant. There is an unfortunate tendency among the evangelicals I deal with to pummel and bludgeon you into compliance with their “orthodox” views.

I attempt to be thorough, critical and cite sources for my views. This is seldom met in kind. Thuggery and name calling is the more typical response. This seems to be the new norm among what I would call the “Fox News Christians,” the “MAGA Christians.” Evangelicalism is now defined in the public eye, largely as represented by the Christians that put Donald Trump in power. For evangelicals, this is a sad turn of events that has been almost 50 years in the making. Post-conservative and moderate evangelicals struggle to have their voices heard, and are generally drowned out by the thuggish majority that have found a champion in Trump, the much anticipated “Cyrus,” that will return fundamentalism to a major force in America.

This is not just my online experience, either. When I share Christ with friends and coworkers the apprehension is palatable. They assume at first, I am an evangelical. I have to get past that hurdle in order to share the gospel. People this is sad! It is only after they learn I am not an evangelical that they feel free to open up and share with me.

While there are notable exceptions, Beth Moore, Jen Hatmaker, Phillip Yancy come to mind, most I fear have been or will be drummed out of the evangelical camp. Like Andy Stanley and his recent sermon on “unhitching” from the OT, they will be deemed “heretics.” It is a relentless process of gradually cutting off any novel or critical thinking in favor of a Borg-like assimilation of all theological thought by the Pharisaical thought police. I do not think history will look back kindly on the movement. Nor do I think the neofundamentalists are going to suddenly become moderates. They taste victory and victory is sweet.

White House Correspondents Dinner: Is Civility in America Dead?

The White House Correspondents’ Dinners are usually a time of good natured fun at the expense of a current White House administration, with a tastefully concealed political barb or two thrown in the mix. Last night’s 2018 dinner was much more than that. Comedian Michelle Wolf’s comedy routine went far beyond a simple roast of the current Trump administration and ended up being a vicious character assassination of individuals in the White House who were in attendance at the dinner. If Ms. Wolf’s intentions were to garner ill feelings toward the Trump administration, I think she failed miserably. In fact, if anything she strengthened, among conservatives, the image that the mainstream news media is hopelessly elitist and liberally slanted. The mean spiritedness shown merely feeds into the Right’s sense of paranoia and sense of victimhood.

This morning’s ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” guest hosted by Johnathan Karl and the ensuing “round table discussion,” confirmed my belief. The general opinion, with the exception of one panelist, was that the comedy was a low blow and not funny. The one who did not agree with the overall sentiment, defended her view by referring to the Trump administration’s hurtful actions and comments as an invitation to return bad behavior in kind. What happened to the liberal mime of “when they go low, we go high?” Out the window, it would seem.

I suspect a fair number of liberals found Wolf’s attack on Sarah Sanders’ eye makeup (as the result of her burning the truth and applying the ash of lies to her eyes) was something she got coming to her, as well as Wolf’s wishing a tree would fall on Kellyanne Conway, but these attacks only widen the rift between conservatives and liberals. Wolf’s routine was not an attempt to be funny nor to foster a feeling of accomplishment amongst the correspondents, but with Conway and Sanders sitting mere feet away from her, she had a captive audience to bully and belittle. It was embarrassing and humiliating beyond pale. She had an agenda of hate and self-promotion. 

Well, she may not have been a well known comedian before last night, but these things have a way of backfiring as we saw last year with Kathy Griffins beheaded Trump joke. People usually know the difference between humor and vitriol.

What concerns me most, and was the subject of a small survey of people on the Stephanopoulos show, was the growing anger and divide between Americans in the last decade or so, that divides friends and family. As Americans we have gotten to a point where we don’t listen at all to others, but only shout each other down. And we often do it in the most belittling and hateful ways. Technology and social media has enabled instant character assassination and the easy button to spam hateful rhetoric. I have family members who left Facebook because it just got too much. Family get togethers became increasingly more and more awkward as far politics was concerned, to the point that after last Thanksgiving we quietly requested that politics no longer be a subject of conversation at family gatherings. When strong and angry political views are present, dialogue and understanding is impossible.

And this is where we, as a nation, have arrived. One can look at a number of contributing events, and fingers can be pointed, but without a “time out,” and some introspection, it’s all just “wind and fury.” There is a lack of civility on all sides that acts as a rip-current, sucking everyone in its path out to sea. I know, because I too have been caught up in the current. As a Christian, leaning considerably to the left of many friends and family members, I have too often succumbed to a feeling of desperately trying to head off what I perceive to be the wrong direction they are heading, and end up sounding shrill or attacking. On line, in the forums, it is too easy to get caught up in the negativity and sarcastic remarks. I recognize I need to do better. 

As the church we, both liberal and conservative, have taken on the ways of the “kingdom of this world” rather than the “Kingdom of God.” Rather than speaking love and truth we end up sloganeering and jeering the “other” side. This is not Christlike. It has to stop. “Speaking the truth in love,” Ephesians 4:15, does not involve anger, bitterness, sarcasm or bullying. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:29-32.

God help us all.

Thinking Out Loud: Religious Certitude

”You know, it’s not just Calvinist who insist upon absolute certitude. The concept that God’s providence controls everything, therefore we need not doubt His “plans,” goes quite a way back. While I think this certitude in divine providence is especially true of Calvinists, it is part and parcel of evangelicalism as a whole. It not only applies to the insistence on an inerrant original text, and therefore dogmatic certitude in knowing what the Bible means, but often laps over onto discernment of God’s working in natural events, political events and history.
Case in point. While European theologians and political pundits of the day could scratch their heads about our civil war over slavery, none claimed to “know” God’s will or direction in the conflict. Yet, almost to a man, American evangelicals, on both sides of the struggle, knew pretty much exactly what God was doing. They were certain of it. God was on their side.
Flash forward to our present American culture wars, and a similar theme presents itself. Most White evangelicals “know” with complete confidence that Trump is God’s man for the hour, while “crooked Hillary” and President Obama before were not. It is interesting that so many evangelicals can claim certainty, without a doubt about the outcome of an election, about God’s providential design for America, yet fall back on mystery when questions are raised about things like slavery, ownership of women, violence in the Bible, etc.. “We’ll just have to ask Jesus when we get to heaven.” “His ways are not our ways, yada, yada.”
And then we have natural disasters. Obviously caused by the Gay Rights movement, or the removal of prayer in schools, or bakers having to cater Gay weddings…how about it’s simply a natural disaster? You see, for many evangelicals the thought that God is somehow “in control” is comforting. How that can be twisted into divine providence, for example, in something like the holocaust is beyond me. Personally, I’d rather think God had nothing to do with the holocaust and man had everything to do with it.“

See “Dear Calvinists: Try Having Mercy On Those of Us Who Doubt”
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/newsflash-calvinists-were-not-doubting-because-this-is-fun-for-us/#CkRu3tMgwAqLKR6d.99

I’m Back, and Retired! Just Checking In

So, it’s been a few months since my last post. Who would’ve known preparing for April retirement would be so labor intensive! So many forms to fill out, so many phone calls, so many emails to confirm this and that. But it’s finally here and I it’s beginning to sink in that this is my new reality. A lot has happened so far this year. Yet again another school shooting leaving 17 dead. In desperation, the trolls for the NRA have vilified the young survivors that have called for sane gun legislation. The corruption of the current Republican administration continues to make the news as the Mueller probe digs deeper. “Draining the swamp” seems to entail mainly the Trump cabinet. Misogynists have no where to hide as the “Me Too” movement gains momentum. Conservatives have moved from Gay-bashing to Trans-bashing. The administration fights an ongoing war with the states over illegal aliens, or as progressives prefer, “undocumented immigrants.” The saber rattling continues between two ego maniacs: Trump and Kim Jong-un prompting Trump to request a huge military parade. Trump has continued his “bull in the china shop” foreign trade policies prompting a tariff war and has sent military to guard our borders against a country he seems to think we are at war with. The president with numerous sexual assault allegations and hush money payed to a porn star declares National Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Oh, the irony!

I think the midterm elections will be very interesting. We just finished watching the lengthy series, “The Roosevelts,” on PBS. So proud of Teddy, FDR and Eleanor and the legacy of Progressivism that has followed. The fight goes on. But, politics aside, as you know from my bio, I grew up evangelical, attended evangelical churches for years and graduated from Fuller Seminary, an evangelical school. I grew up in the evangelical bubble, largely insulated from conflicting world views and protected from “liberal” views like historical criticism. But, all that has changed over the past half-dozen years for me as I stepped outside the bubble and critically assessed evangelical orthodoxy and the legacy I had inherited. The evangelical insistence that “Christian” businesses could legally refuse services to gays set off red flags for me, even though, at the time, I was not gay-affirming. The parallels to Christian businesses in the South during segregation and the Southern Baptist resistance to desegregation was just too obvious.

So, where am I today, 6 years later? Oddly enough, still attending an evangelical church. It is not a good fit, as I am no longer evangelical, but it’s my 94 year old mother’s church, and we take her there. It is also the church my wife grew up in. We have a new pastor, who has been influenced to some degree by the Emerging Church Movement: “You can belong before you believe,” so I have been guardedly optimistic. Becoming a church member is out of the question for me as I am at odds with much of the Assemblies of God denominational affirmations, such as the infallibility of scripture and the “biblical” definition of marriage. In many ways, my growing rejection of evangelicalism has created an “outside looking in” situation for me and the church I attend…not ideal.

I do enjoy singing and worship there, but… For the most part our pastor is non-controversial, no political statements and light on theology, which, if you knew me, is a bit disappointing. No discussion of gun violence, no discussion on Police treatment of Blacks, no discussion of misogyny in society, no attempts to reach out to Gays, in short, no social gospel. It’s as if the Sermon on the Mount never happened. He is a nice guy and sincere, but follows the usual White, evangelical road map. Although the church practices “outreach” to the community in a number of different ways, English classes for immigrants, help with applying for citizenship and an Easter egg hunt that included special needs children, the church programs center around personal discipleship. In other words, like most evangelical churches the goal is getting people “saved” then keeping them happy they made the right decision by constantly affirming them.

A personal relationship with Jesus is the tantamount theme, which, if it resulted in a realization of responsibility to society would be ok with me. But instead the goal is to try and get as many people “saved” as possible in as short amount of time. Evangelism always seems to end up being an exclusive club, where once in, we congratulate ourselves on our good fortune. Nothing is done for purely altruistic reasons. The reason behind everything from missions to Easter egg hunts is, basically a sales pitch for Jesus, or at least the evangelical version. No wonder Amway has done so well in evangelical circles. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying following Jesus or learning to be Christlike is a bad thing, but it seems like evangelical churches are immature in their faith, inward, self serving and overly concerned with a personal “walk with Christ” that ignores too much of society and its problems.

As I have grappled with my own doubts and questions, and engaged in (sometimes very lively) conversations with evangelicals online, I have come to the conclusion that evangelicalism in its dominant form is probably not redeemable. It is too closely aligned with dominionism and White Christian Nationalism. As we saw in Nazi Germany in the 20s and 30s when religion and state marry, the ends justify the means and Christians are willing to look away when the state tramples individual rights. That so many evangelical leaders see The Donald as God’s chosen, anointed leader to lead us back to a Christian America is further proof of how far white evangelicalism has strayed from Christ’s example. It is a worldview, that quite frankly, scares me. I don’t think evangelicalism will have the last word, however, despite an uptick in fundamentalism within it’s ranks. Time will tell.

 

 

Sh**hole Countries and Nationalism

As of late, the President, as well as the Republican Party as a whole, has made it very clear, through their policies on immigration, expensive border walls, refugees and breaks for the wealthiest Americans, that they are “tribalists.” Tribalism is America’s “original sin,” brought over to the Colonies from Europe and perpetuated by our Founding Fathers and clearly seen in the American ideal of Manifest Destiny and America’s attempts toward global domination, both economically and militarily. You will often hear that racism is America’s original sin, but that is really a manifestation of tribalism.

In America, as in many other nations, tribalism is wrapped in the guise of patriotism, flag waving and anthem singing. Nationalism is tribalism on a grand scale. Nationalism, as President Trump’s recent comments on refusing immigration from “sh**hole” countries, reflects the elitism that accompanies nationalism, i.e., you can’t believe America is the “greatest nation on earth” and not look down on “lesser” nations.

While keeping our nation safe, securing borders and protecting our interests abroad is one of the primary functions of government, it is not the function of the church. In fact, most of the functions of government are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the Kingdom of God. This is why it is so dangerous for the church to identify itself unreservedly with nationalism and patriotism.

No one is more “patriotic” than a Franklin Graham or a Jerry Falwell. Theirs and many other evangelical leaders like Wayne Grudem’s unabashed support of Trump and republican politics puts evangelicals in the awkward position of standing behind and supporting Nationalism, racism and in opposition to basic human rights. I am not saying that Christians should be non-political but clear distinctions should be made as to what we as Christians wish to represent. Do we clamor for war or work for peace, for example. In the case of Trump’s attitude towards non-white immigration and refugee admittance, do we stand on the side of the oppressed and poor…even if our nation does not benefit directly, or are we to be known as siding with a self serving government.

Of course, not all evangelicals, nor, indeed all Republicans indorse or are happy with President Trump. Nor does wishing to secure America’s borders or have immigration reform immediately label one as as a Nationalist or a right-wing supremest. But when evangelical leadership repeatedly makes excuses, is silent or outrightly agrees with Trump’s posturing the message the world receives is that evangelicals are racist and xenophobic.

If evangelicals wish to counter this perception, there is work to be done. The same outrage and relentless condemnation evangelicals showed the last president, a respectable black man, needs to be shown the current president, a wealthy, sexist and racist white man. Currently only a minority of evangelicals seem to be grasping this fact, even while republican politicians are having second thoughts about Trump. Whether this is indeed possible remains to be seen. If evangelicals can hold their leadership more accountable, calling them out when they are clearly in conflict of the teachings of Christ, the evangelical community may repair their image problems.

In conclusion, progressive Christians are often accused of pandering to current social movements, thereby losing the ability to confront the evils within society. While there may be some truth to that, evangelicals need to realize that complete identity with white conservative politics also removes objectivity and the ability to have a prophetic impact on society.

Christians and the 2nd Amendment: An Unholy Obsession

April, 2008, Barack Obama, angered many conservative midwesterners by saying

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At the time I was still processing what would later become a rejection of conservative Christianity, but at that particular moment I was still “clinging” to a fair amount of my conservative heritage. Like many conservative Christians, I was outraged by the comment. Since then, and many mass shootings since, I have become acutely aware of the truth in President Obama’s observation. American Christians have an unholy obsession with the second amendment. Owning a gun for the majority of Christians and conservatives in general, has shifted from a hunting hobby to a perceived need for “protection.” (1)

The merger of conservative Christianity and conservative American political ideology is so complete, it has become increasingly difficult to tell them apart. While my conservative friends and my nemeses on the blogs will be quick to point out that my Christian support of liberal causes is no different than their support of conservative ones, there is a difference, however. Conservatism and conservative Christianity preserves the status quo, it stifles change and resists reform. In short, conservative Christianity has joined the powers of Babylon. As Brian Zahnd has observed,

“America is many things. It’s a country, a culture, an empire, and a religion. As a country and culture America can often be respected, admired, and celebrated. But as an empire and religion, America is a rival to Christ. One of the reasons that Christian discipleship is so difficult in America is that we are trying to make disciples of people who are already thoroughly discipled into a rival religion. You can either operate under a governing philosophy of America first or you can seek first the kingdom of God, but you can’t do both. To claim otherwise is to either tacitly or explicitly claim that Christ is a servant of the American cause. But as Karl Barth (who knew a thing or two about the dangers of Christian nationalism) taught us, Christ cannot serve some other cause, Christ can only rule.” (2)

On the other hand, liberalism is never satisfied with status quo, nor is it ever “at home” with the current political regime. Progressive Christianity is counter-cultural, regardless of the naysayers who accuse it of bowing to current cultural ideology. It is subversive to those movements which seek to bolster abusive power structures.

One such power structure is the NRA and the American gun lobby. The NRA has identified itself so successfully with the dogma that owning a gun is patriotic, that conservatives opine that any talk of restricting that ownership is tantamount to treason. Since patriotism has become so completely entangled with Christianity among conservatives, they follow blindly along with the narrative. This toxic blend of blind patriotism and gun ownership among Christians has created a dangerous climate in America, the ugly results of which we see on an almost daily basis.

Instead of seeking a reduction of the vast arsenal of guns in the hands of civilians, conservative Christians claim more guns will make us safer, despite the evidence to the contrary. For example the recent statement by Jerry Falwell, Jr. that students should be allowed to carry guns on the Liberty campus:

“…if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in, …I just wanted to take this opportunity to encourage all of you to get your permit. We offer a free course, Let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here.” (3)

Not only is this rhetoric contrary to the calling to be peacemakers in the Bible, but it is based on faulty evidence. The research relied on by the NRA is too small a sample and too old to be reliable:

“The rhetoric that credits guns with reducing violence draws largely on a 1995 analysis titled ‘Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun’ by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University. Kleck estimated at 2.2 to 2.5 million the occasions when a gun might have been used in self-defence. That 2.5 million is the figure most often quoted by the National Rifle Association. It’s the data that forms the scientific bedrock for VCDL, and organizations like it, to claim that guns save lives. But are its data and conclusions reliable?” (4) the estimate was based on a telephone survey of less than 5000 people, 213 of which claimed they’d used a gun in self defense. Based on that small sample, Kleck estimated there were up to 2.5 million self defense cases a year involving firearms.

On the contrary, gun proliferation has been shown to INCREASE rather than decrease gun violence in most studies. The 2010 Violence Policy Center study showed that in 2010 for every defensive gun use there were 36 criminal uses. According to the long range study by the Boston University School of Public Health conducted between 1981 and 2010, the states with higher levels of gun ownership showed significantly higher numbers of gun related deaths. Researchers in an article for the American Journal of Public Health predicted that if Mississippi’s gun ownership rate went down from 76.8% to 57.7%, it’s gun related deaths would decline by 17%. (4)

What conservative Christians fail to to understand is the corruption behind the gun lobby and the NRA. There is a dark side to all the talk of patriotism and constitutional rights:

“That wholesome public relations veneer masks something deeply sinister and profoundly destructive. There is no other way to say this: The N.R.A. funds domestic terrorism.
A shadow government exists in the world of gun sales, and the people who write gun regulations are the very people who profit from gun sales. The N.R.A. would like to keep it that way.
Just this week, the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on a measure that would loosen restrictions on gun silencers and armor-piercing bullets (the vote was indefinitely postponed after the Las Vegas massacre). It’s not hard to learn about how millions of N.R.A. dollars have spread throughout Congress to influence that vote.“ (5)

The church needs to stand up to those that facilitate violence, to speak with one voice against the organizations and businesses that seek profit over public safety. The church needs to separate itself from Babylon, as Brian Zahnd reminds us:

“From birth every American has been formed by the dominant script that Walter Brueggemann identifies as “technological therapeutic military consumerism.” But Christians are those who have embraced the subversive counter-script of the cross. It’s not the task of the church to “make America great again.” The contemporary task of the church is to make Christianity countercultural again. Once we untether Jesus from the interests of empire, we begin to see just how countercultural and radical Jesus’ ideas actually are:

Enemies? Love them.
Violence? Renounce it.
Money? Share it.
Foreigners? Welcome them.
Sinners? Forgive them.

These are the kind of radical ideas that will always be opposed by the principalities and powers, but which the followers of Jesus are called to embrace, announce, and enact. The degree to which the church is faithful to Jesus and his radical ideas is the degree to which the church embodies a faith that is truly countercultural.” (6)

 

1 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/5-facts-about-the-nra-and-guns-in-america/

2 https://brianzahnd.com/2017/10/postcards-from-babylon/

3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/05/liberty-university-president-if-more-good-people-had-concealed-guns-we-could-end-those-muslims/?utm_term=.582485e01081

4 https://aeon.co/essays/the-us-gun-lobby-says-that-guns-save-lives-do-they

5 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/rosanne-cash-country-musicians-nra.html

6 https://brianzahnd.com/2017/10/postcards-from-babylon/

Is Evangelicalism a White Nationalist Movement?

I am appropriating a post by Fred Clark that he posted on Patheos’s Slacktivist blog just after last year’s election of Donald Trump, who’s only qualifications for POTUS were that he was White and wealthy.

Original post here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/11/09/white-evangelicalism-is-white-nationalism/#disqus_thread

While I know a good many wonderful conservative evangelicals who would not dream of calling themselves “racist,” having grown up in the evangelical environment I have seen my fair share of racism, usually disguised as a concern for “law and order” or the belief that non-whites are somehow lazier than Whites. Due to a certain degree of cognitive dissonance, White evangelicals are very resistant to any suggestion that racism, both implicit and explicit, has played a part in the development of conservative evangelicalism. This is due in large part to both ignorance of the history of evangelicalism/fundamentalism in America, and the acceptance of the evangelical revisionism of American history as a true account.

The degree to which individuals share in the racism behind the evangelical movement, of course varies with individuals and their awareness of said racism. I, for example, as an evangelical, fell into many of the standard reductionist views of Blacks and poor people that my conservative evangelical friends and fellow parishioners held. I, like other evangelicals, was almost totally ignorant of anything other than a White world view.

America is rapidly changing, and it is not a White America that we are seeing arising out of it’s racist past. For many Whites this is deeply troubling, for a chapter of American history where Whites controlled everything is coming to a close. In the future there will not be a White America, period. It is this realization that has fed the xenophobic election of Mr. Trump, a last ditch effort to shore up a crumbling edifice of isolationism, nativism and White privilege.

As Fred Clark has stated: “White evangelicalism yesterday performed the purpose for which it was designed: It elected a white nationalist as president. This was not a failure, but a success. This was not a side effect or an accident or a collateral consequence. This was not the end of white evangelicalism, but the culmination of its purpose, its origin, its intent. White evangelicalism is white nationalism. This is what it is, and always has been, for.”

Mr. Clark then goes on to argue convincingly, that when overt racism within the fundamentalist and evangelical camp became too obvious prior to Jerry Fallwell’s Moral Majority (and Bob Jones University I might add) in the 1970’s, a change of focus became necessary for evangelicals to claim the moral higher ground, as building on a history of resistance to civil rights became increasingly difficult to sell to America. Hence, anti-abortion became the new crusade and litmus test for true evangelicalism:

“But then came calamity — the Civil Rights Movement turned America upside-down and exposed the disgraceful evil of segregationist white evangelicalism for all to see…White evangelicalism was laid bare as white nationalism in all its ugly glory. It’s claims of moral authority and moral superiority were proved to be a sham. White evangelicalism lost all credible claim to the moral high ground, and that dealt a heavy blow to its political agenda of white nationalism.”

I would add, the election of a Catholic President, JFK, in the 1960’s had cut off access to the Oval Office by evangelicals, a privilege they had enjoyed for decades. Something had to be done. Evangelical influence in Politics was slipping.

As Mr. Clark puts it, “The only thing to do, then, was to change the subject. And so, with stunning abruptness, white evangelicals adopted a second, and suddenly non-negotiable defining doctrine: anti-abortionism.

“This was new and alien. White evangelicals had mostly applauded Roe v. Wade, regarding anti-abortion views as a peculiarly Catholic mistake. The prevailing attitude among white evangelicals, on the rare occasions they thought about it at all, was similar to the prevailing attitude in Judaism — that a developing fetus has great value and moral significance as a potential person, but that this value and significance did not equal the full personhood of infants or adults”

“That belief — the majority opinion among white evangelicals as recently as the mid-1970s — was soon to become anathema. After Nixon’s failed presidency failed to reverse the losses for white nationalism, white evangelicals pulled a 180 and embraced anti-abortionism as their path to regaining moral legitimacy. This would be their ticket to reclaiming the pretense of the moral high ground while still continuing to promote a political agenda of white nationalism.
It’s simple, really: Redefine abortion as baby-killing and you redefine everyone who supports it as a baby-killer. And you’re always guaranteed to hold the moral high-ground compared to a bunch of baby-killers, even if you’re a white nationalist. Who’s worse? Segregationists? Or baby-killers? The baby-killers, obviously. They kill babies. It’s murder.”

“No white evangelical born before 1970 grew up believing this. No white evangelical born after 1980 grew up not believing this.”

“So now white evangelicals were no longer in the morally indefensible position of explicitly defending segregation and white nationalist politics. Now they were able to regard and portray themselves as moral champions battling against Satanic baby-killers, just as earlier generations of segregationist, pro-slavery, white-nationalist white evangelicals regarded and portrayed themselves as moral champions battling against those who disrespected “the Bible.”

Clark continues: “…white evangelicals again voted for white nationalism. They supported a candidate who explicitly and unambiguously made white nationalism the centerpiece and driving passion of his campaign. The fig-leaf for this support was abortion. And once again we are asked to believe — after centuries defending slavery, segregation and Jim Crow — that it was only about abortion, and that the 100-percent correlation between this anti-abortion politics and white nationalist politics is just an unfortunate and unforeseen coincidence.”

Unfortunately, many good, loving people were duped by the shell game performed by the Republican Party. In the remote chance that Trump would appoint a SCOTUS that would turn Roe v Wade around, a Faustian bargain was made that ignored the poor, refugees, women, minorities, the LGBTQ community and rights for the disabled and other disenfranchised individuals. America will remember this deal with the devil for decades to come. It does not bode well for evangelicals.