Updated — see below
I feel compelled to write this piece because so much of the commentary here at BMG reflects a profound misunderstanding of the theology and resulting worldview of the Trumpist evangelical right wing.
I refer to a faith tradition that starts with the credo that the King James bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God. Some followers of this tradition narrow that to specific editions of the King James bible, in light of the many mistranslations and resulting changes made to the text in question. A strong force within this faith tradition is the “Prosperity Gospel”, advocated by evangelists like the late Oral Roberts. The premise of this belief is that prosperity is a gift given by God to those He approves of. By implication, this tradition asserts that poverty is a sign of God’s disapproval. This faith tradition views the material universe as a battleground between “Good” and “Evil”, fought between God and Satan. Followers of this tradition believe that God, in the person of Jesus, will return to Israel, where an epic final confrontation will be fought that will ravish the entire earth. A chosen few will be literally lifted into Heaven, and the rest will be left behind.
Just to be clear about some realities: This is a faith tradition whose followers assert that the earth is 6,000 years old and that God created humanity in a single act. Followers of this tradition view science, especially biology, as the work of Satan. Many believe that fossils are created by God to test our faith.
The faith tradition I describe is not some extremist cult with a handful of followers. Millions of Americans subscribe to these articles of faith.
This religious context is crucial to understanding the challenge we face over the next several decades. When this community asserts its right to practice its beliefs, we must remember that these followers believe themselves to be acting in accordance with God’s will. They view our opposition as the work of Satan. They believe that they will ultimately triumph.
Here are ten very specific aspects of this that demand explicit enumeration:
1. Followers of this faith tradition view themselves as God’s chosen people
2. Followers of this faith tradition believe that if they are not wealthy, it is because Satanic forces are at work to temporarily thwart God’s will for them.
3. “Liberal Democrats” epitomize these Satanic forces. Liberal Democrats encourage abortion, homosexuality, fornication, and so on throughout America.
4. God is currently punishing America for the sins of America’s Liberal Democrats.
5. Any science or objective analysis that argues to the contrary is the work of Satan
6. The mainstream media is the explicit voice of Satan, attempting to dissuade the faithful from their revealed Truth.
7. Women are created to serve men. This service is primarily to bear and then raise children within the confines of heterosexual marriage. Women should at all times be subservient to their husbands.
8. Any non-procreative sex act is immoral, as is any sex act outside heterosexual holy matrimony. Within a marriage, the only Godly purpose for sex is to make babies and please the husband.
9. America was created by God to be a nation of God. The laws of America must therefore be changed so that they are in accordance with God’s will
10. Donald Trump is the unlikely warrior chosen by God to fulfill God’s purpose and vision for America. Any opposition or criticism of Donald Trump is a Satanic attack on God.
The votes of these Americans will not be won over by any sort of rational or logical argument. They will not be affected by economic arguments. We are talking about religious fervor unconstrained by any connection to the real world.
We deny the reality of this faith tradition — and their religious hostility to our very being — at our extreme peril.
Update (10-October-2018)
The New York Times published a piece today about evangelical women in Texas who support Beto O’Rourke. That piece includes the following (emphasis mine):
It’s far from clear how much influence voters like Ms. Clarke and her friends will have in the Senate race. Texas remains a deeply conservative state. One in three Texans are evangelical, according to the Pew Research Center, and 85 percent of white evangelical voters in Texas supported Mr. Trump in 2016, higher than even the national average, which was a record high for a presidential election. Republican strategists dismiss the notion that their Texas base shows any signs of cracking.
I understand that not all evangelical voters are as extreme as the cohort I describe here. At the same time, these numbers should be a wake-up call:
– One in three Texas voters are evangelical
– 85% of those supported Donald Trump in 2016
We must not allow ourselves to discount the influence that this demographic has on politics at the national level.
I rejected all institutional religious dogma when I was 18 because I could not reconcile its ignorant inhumanity with my love for knowledge, mankind and, ironically for some to believe, Jesus.
If they take the Bible so darn literally they would do well to re-read it. At least some of what you cite above contradicts what the Bible actually says. For example, how do you reconcile prosperity gospel with Jesus’s telling the rich young man who claimed to keep all the commandments that he still had to sell all he had and distribute the proceeds to the poor because, “It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”?
You’ll have take that up with them.
I can assure you that Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, the late Tammy Faye Bakker, et al have been spinning answers to that question for decades.
The bible is full of contradictions, and so anyone who claims that every word is literally true is already fully capable of ignoring the concern you raise.
I generally dislike painting with broad brushes, particularly when it comes to other people’s religious beliefs. This kind of post has the unfortunate potential to be the left wing equivalent of the right railing against “political Islam”, although I doubt that was its intention.
There is no doubt in my mind that the figures in the religious right that have aligned themselves with Trump do subscribe to some of these theological tenants and are to be feared and fought against. I completely agree with the OP on that front.
Where I disagree is slinging mud against anyone under the evangelical label or assuming those that identify with this diverse theological tradition automatically subscribe to the politicization of their faith in this manner. We saw baseless attacks like that against progressive leader Nika Elguardo.
Rev. Barber, Rev. King, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Wendell Berry, Rev. Jim Wallis, Deval Patrick, Andrew Gillum, Stacey Abrams, Rev. Sharpton and Dr. Cornel West are just some of the progressive figures who also identify as evangelical Christians. So does the pastor who married me, another former pastor of the church I got married in, and my brother and sister in law who have acted as lay pastors of a church plant in Cambridge.
The church where I met Sen. Warren, Union Church in the South End, self identifies as both progressive and evangelical.
My brother and sister in law attended an evangelical conference in Worcester this past weekend where the speakers urged their audience to reject the politics of racial division and to reject politicians of poor personal character claiming to speak for the movement. They took that to be thinly veiled distancing from Trump.
They both strongly oppose Trump and Kavanaugh and have become quite active Resisters as of late. They do so while maintaining more traditional theological views on the Bible than I do.
So I appreciate the OP and recognize the danger. I think we should also recognize the many allies we have in the faith community who identify as evangelical or Catholic or mainline Protestant or even liberal Christian. Nearly all of our progressive victories in the last century from the New Deal to the Civil Rights movement started in the Church and moved out into the world at large.
I do not doubt many secular humanists or adherents to non-Christian traditions share these values and I do not mean to marginalize their contributions either. We are all in this together. It’s a fight to save the soul of our country from the very real hellfires of white nationalism, Christian chauvinism, corporate avarice, and toxic masculinity. Just know there are more Christians in our camp than the extremist one.
I’ve been known to jump on people for using the broad brush you describe, but in this case I was satisfied that the diary sufficiently identified the “Trumpist evangelical right wing”.
My issue is two fold. The first is that I do not think all evangelicals belong in that camp, and if it was unclear to me, than it would be unclear to a non-BMGer coming across the article for the first time. The second is that I do not see the “trumpist rightist” evangelicals as our primary problem. Our problem is the unemployed white guy who doesn’t care about abortion or gays but does feel white men are getting the shaft.
They are Trump’s real base and have been activated in a very disturbing way. Even around this issue. The ‘mens rights’ folks who like ‘classical liberal’ Jordan Peterson are more dangerous than the evangelicals. The evangelicals are small in number and even smaller in influence. It’s a paper tiger with nowhere else to go. They are the ones protesting for Kavanaugh, not the evangelicals who were largely absent from this debate. They are the ones he virtue signals too talking about ‘innocent young men or sons’ being ‘unfairly targeted’. They are the ones sharing beers after the confirmation.
Evangelicals under 40 in all regions are far more progressive on race, gender, the economy, ecology, and sexuality than their parents. We can wait for the old evangelicals to die out, what worries me is white men between my age and 50 who are disenfranchised and blaming minorities and women for their lot in life. They are far more frightening. The moral majority has not been a majority since 1988. The racist and sexist majority is what we are dealing with today. They are post-culture war and post-60s in the worst way.
I tried to be quite specific. I’m certainly not talking about the faith tradition of Jimmy Carter.
Was some part of “extremist Evangelical” confusing? Is “Trumpist evangelical right wing” not explicit enough?
Does the Union Church in the South End describe itself as “literalist fundamentalist”, asserting that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old and that evolution is a Satanist lie? Do any of the figures you mention make these claims?
I am not arguing against all who identify as evangelical, and I don’t know how much more explicit I can be regarding “Catholic”, “mainline Protestant”, or “liberal Christian”. Why do you then bring those up?
I am reminded of the reaction when Ms. Clinton used the word “despicable” to describe a portion of Donald Trump’s 2016 supporters.
There ARE Muslim terrorists who actively seek to kill us. I have never argued that all Muslims are terrorists (unlike the rabid right).
I fear you are reacting to things I did not say, and it creates the appearance that you seek to avoid or deny the implications of the things I did say.
I’m sure that’s true here in Massachusetts and perhaps even here in the Northeast.
I think it’s much less clear that this is true throughout the deep south and even portions of the northwest.
As others have noted, this is a generalization but IMO a fair one. I would strenuously disagree with you, however, that BMG readers misunderstand it. We’ve had their views on gay rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, competing religions, and their “angry” version of the Old Testament thrust upon us for generations. Elmer Gantry is nothing new, and neither are Abner Snopes or George Lincoln Rockwell. The Tea Party has just thrown them all into a blender and come up with a new drink.
I suggest that at least some here at BMG misunderstand this (hence my post).
One common theme here at BMG is something to the effect of “when these voters see the economic impact of Trumpism, they will change.” That meme occurs in various forms (often couched in terms of “owner class”, “rent-seeking behavior”, and so on) but the underlying premise is the same — economic self-interest will change the opinion of these individuals.
I suggest that this theme reflects a misunderstanding of how this group interprets the economic suffering it experiences, and that’s one of my motivations for this piece. An individual in this group views themselves as a member of God’s chosen elect. This is their literal understanding of being “born again” — God has personally called them, and they have accepted that call. For this person, it follows as a matter of faith that God will grant them prosperity.
In this world view, when they experience economic suffering, to them that suffering means that something is standing between the prosperity they passionately believe they are entitled to and the reality they experience. That “something”, in this belief system, can only be sin — the sin of someone ELSE (since theirs is washed clean by baptism and then confession).
In this belief system today, the “someone else” is “Liberal Democrats”. You and me. Especially Liberal Democrats from New York, California, and Massachusetts (Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine are not nearly so reviled). The various sins of we Liberal Democrats are legion — fornication, abortion, the abomination of homosexuality, etc.
They passionately believe that they in particular and America in general are being punished by God for the sins being committed by Liberal Democrats. It follows that for them the destruction of Liberal Democrats is God’s mission for them. Hence their view that Donald Trump is a warrior of God chosen by God to save America.
The cycle of Trumpist ascendancy is thus closed. Trumpism exacerbates economic suffering, but this group denies that. Since they believe that their economic suffering is God’s punishment for the sins of Liberal Democrats, they believe that the solution is to destroy Liberal Democrats — and elevate Trumpists.
It is the direct, personal, and religious tie from “social issues” to economics that I think at least some of us here at BMG misunderstand. Because of the misunderstanding, at least some of us — and in my view “many of us” is more accurate — drastically underestimate the intensity of their desire to destroy us.
This is not a group that we will win over with rational arguments about “rent-seeking behavior” and the mathematics of wealth concentration.
Brilliantly written and articulated, Tom. Thank you.
It reminded me of what Gandhi said on the subject : “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians; they are so unlike your Christ.”
No, but we have won elections without them before and can win elections without them again. What worries me more is the new culture war around race, BLM, the football protests, and mens rights. This is a lot closer to the Nixon hard hat majority than Reagan’s moral majority. And it is a potentially durable and dangerous coalition. These are the some of the folks that voted for Obama twice and now are hard core Trump supporters. Separate from the working class voters in both genders who voted for Obama twice then voted for Trump over economic concerns. These folks are culture warriors too-but on an entirely irreligious front.
They may be lost for good, if they were voters to begin with, and they may be unwinnable since their masculinity has become so toxic. They are also past economic arguments. So yes, I have evolved from my 2017 opinions. The number of irreligious men cheering on the Kavanaugh confirmation is downright disturbing. The number of irreligious white men cheering against Kapernick is dangerous. I have no idea what we do with them.
You are right about economic issues being irrelevant to their worldview and their animosity to progressives being a major feature. A book that pulled too many punches for my taste, “Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right,” amply demonstrates that the religious right doesn’t care if capitalism impoverishes or kills them.. And it also shows how patronizing and dismissive of science and reason they are in their full-blown cognitive dissonance. But you know what? I see a lot of “PEP” liberals doing exactly the same thing. “PEP,” for the un-initiated, is “progressive except for Palestine.” Which is a nice way of saying that they are sane except for waiving away all criticisms of Israel that don’t fit into the Zionist narrative . This is probably closely related to what you are describing in the so-called “Christian” world.
One other observation: all these tensions were visible even before the 20’s. If you go back to before the Civil War, you will see the Abolitionists had one view of Christianity, and the anti-abolitionists quite another. You can find many of their tracts in Project Gutenberg if you are interested..
White evangelical conservatives could easily make an economistic argument against the sexual revolution. They could say it has weakened the connection of men to work and family, and so has led to the breakdown of society in poor communities where it has been fully realized.
Violence and abuse are rampant in poor black and Latino areas of our own state. You think you are offering evangelicals a ticket to the “nobility/delivery” society that is the endpoint of Blue efforts. White evangelicals who are hanging on to some shreds of morality to guide their actions see your cultural relaxation for what it is: an effort to rip out their supports and leave them in the same dependent class to which you have confined blacks and Latinos.
What profound misunderstandings have been exhibited in BMG regarding this American version of the Taliban?
Here’s an example (emphasis mine):
The group I’m describing here will redouble their support for the Trumpists (they don’t care about the GOP) if the Trumpists make abortion and birth control illegal. They will do that because they will believe that their prosperity will increase as God smiles upon America in response to this “return to morality”.
I agree with you that the Trumpist politicians (like Mr McConnell and Mr. Kavanaugh) do this for money.
My point though, is that this observation will not change the votes of the group I’m talking about even a little bit.
These voters believe that the Trumpists are doing God’s work responding to God’s will. They are perfectly ok with the monetary benefits that flow to these politicians as a result — in their eyes, that increased wealth demonstrates that God approves of their behavior.
So … it isn’t at all that I disagree with you about what these Trumpist politicians are doing. I’m instead emphasizing that your argument will, if anything, increase the support for Trumpism from this group.
I think you’ve turned what I said around. I have never said that the evangelical voters are about money, not abortion. I was referring to the Republican politicians who seek the votes of evangelicals. These people, once elected, have no need to make abortion illegal. All they need is a “boogie man” who prevents them from doing so and they promise to fight the boogie man, in this case, the Democratic Party. Of course, they don’t spend much effort in this staged fight because there are far more important things for them to legislate, like limiting worker’s rights, lowering taxes on the rich, and other economic matters.
In short, they do not ever need to make abortion illegal just promise to try. It’s been over 40 years and its a formula that seems to work quite well for them as they now control all the branches of government.
It’s like the “repeal Obamacare” stunt they pilled for years to gin up support for their campaign. Once in power, oddly enough they did not have the political will to do it, but they did, somehow manage to give tax breaks for the rich.
It’s all about money for those in power to make the changes. For the voters, not so much. .
I understand that you were talking about Republican politicians and not evangelicals regarding this being about money.
I think this is different from Obamacare, though.
I think they will make abortion illegal, and soon. I think that the Trumpist evangelical voters that I describe here demand quick and immediate action. I think that’s why seating Mr. Kavanaugh was so crucial.
Do you think there are four other judges who would vote to outlaw abortion in the USA? I don’t.
They will dismantle it piece by piece. They are already doing so. They will do the same for birth control.
We already saw the court, before Mr. Kavanaugh was even nominated, allowing employers to refuse to pay for insurance that covers artificial conception.
The Supreme Court already refused to block Arkansas restrictions that essentially outlaw abortion in Arkansas.
Nine-tenths of Americans think contraception is highly morally acceptable, and two-thirds think that religious employers should be required to cover it. This is a great example of an issue where we can count on the democratic process rather than the courts to get it right. In other words, if a court were to decide there were no constitutional right to contraception, the sky would not fall. Another way to look at it: if we can’t rely on the democratic process in a case such as contraception where the public’s views are so clear, then we are in big trouble.
This point is less applicable to other highly charged issues of course.
I’m not talking about all Americans, I’m talking about the evangelical Trumpist right wing.
The segment I’m talking about has disproportionate influence on government. If it didn’t, Mr. Trump would not be president and the GOP majority would not be doing the things it’s doing.
And yes, we ARE in big trouble.
We elected Barack Obama……twice….despite the evangelical vote that now, as you tell us, is in full control.
How did we go from there to here?
I did not say, anywhere, that the Trumpist evangelical right is “in full control”. It is very hard to have a civil dialogue with you when you so frequently and so flagrantly misquote me and react to things I have not written.
For the segment in question, the way we got “from there to here” is that the election of Barack Obama, followed by the nomination of Hillary Clinton, energized the Trumpist evangelical right.
Sites like this tell the Texas story:
Year: Winning candidate, Margin of Victory (%)
The last Democrat that won a presidential election in Texas was Jimmy Carter in 1976. The piece I cited earlier today reports that 1 in 3 Texas voters identify themselves as “evangelical” and 85% of those supported Donald Trump in 2016.
Sites like this report that about 8 M Texans voted in 2008. So we can expect about 2.64 M of those to be evangelical. Of those, voters, about 2.24 M supported Donald Trump in 2016.
The margin of victory in Texas in 2008 was 0.95 M.
The Trumpist evangelical right was more than enough to swing the Texas election. Is it coincidence that the last Democrat who won a Texas presidential election was Jimmy Carter — a very public Southern Baptist?
I find it curious Tom you linked to an article showing about white evangelical support for Donald Trump among women dropping and Beto O’Rourkes targeted outreach to that community succeeding, as evidence of a threat.
Andrew Gillum is enjoying a healthy lead against the secular toxic male Ron DeSantis in Florida. A big part of the reason is that he and his running mate are very open about their evangelical faith and link it to progressive policy choices. Similarly, the women interviewed in that article are voting for Beto in defiance of their pastors because they have seen family separations as a faith issue that is more important than abortion, and have recognizes that capitalism is incompatible with Christianity. Will we win back the 85? Maybe not, but in a race that will come down to a percentage point or two, winning back the 5-10% Beto seems to be doing could have a disproportionate impact.
I think if we attack Trump on his character flaws-his greed, his adultery, his corruption, his lying as well as focus on the human element of the immigration debate-we can actually reframe a lot of the traditional ‘faith and family’ political issues around a Christian inspired social justice paradigm.
I say these things not to discount any of your points-only to add that I do not think the chauvinistic nationalism or chauvinistic Christianity of the right should lead us to surrender the potent imagery and narratives of the American Christian experience or American patriotic narrative. As a believer, I strongly believe God is on my side and not on theirs. And there should be room in the progressive tent for fellow believers disgusted by the abuse of their faith by this amoral President.
I hope that Mr. O’Rourke wins his race. I have contributed to his campaign. The women featured in the piece are newsworthy precisely because of the strength of the evangelical bloc in Texas. That was clearly described in the piece and that’s why I cited the piece.
I am not proposing or suggesting any of the things you imply in your last paragraph. I do not propose that we surrender anything. I have always maintained that we should welcome every voter who comes to us after being disgusted by the other side.
What we MUST do, however, is acknowledge that a great many Americans passionately believe that we are evil, that we are doing the work of Satan, and that we must be destroyed by any means possible.
Those Americans will not be swayed by fact-checking, by appeals to economic self-interest, or by proof-texting exchanges of scripture.
We must always maintain a welcoming hearth for those who feel called by their faith to come to us. We must also be prepared to vigorously defend that hearth from those who would destroy it and us.
Trumplicals should practice what they preach. From a friend. “Son to Dad: So if the bible says we should help the poor, welcome the foreigner, heal the sick, respect others, not lie, not commit adultery, and not steal, then why do we support Donald Trump?
Dad to Son : Oh Billy. We don’t actually practice these things. We only preach them.”