As you can tell by now, I’ve decided to give November over to writing posts from a posture of gratitude, particularly for institutions for which gratitude may not be the stock and trade of what I read online.
I don’t know how many of us #NeverTrump people are writing about what we appreciate in the Moral-Majority-slash-Religious-Right, but if it is not a genre yet, I’m willing to be the one to start it up.
I’ve studied enough of our history to have an appreciation for the Religious Right. For Southern Baptists, the advent of the Religious Right was, in my opinion, a very healthy development that actually made us LESS politically partisan. Consider the following lines that I penned in 2006 in this post over on my personal blog.
Consider the officers of the SBC elected in 1901: Gov. W. J. Northen (Democrat governor from Georgia) as President, Gov. A. H. Longino (Democrat governor from Mississippi) as 1st VP, and Gov. W. W. Heard (Democrat governor from Louisiana) as 2nd VP. Gov. James P. Eagle (Democrat governor of Arkansas) served two terms as SBC President immediately after Gov. Northen. By the way, Gov. Eagle was also the President of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention for twenty-one consecutive years. Eagle’s church, Second Baptist Little Rock, publicly excommunicated agrarian upstart Gov. Jeff Davis during (and arguably because of) a political campaign.
……
I believe that the recent alignment of the Southern Baptist Convention with the GOP is one of the healthiest things that has happened to us in our history. The stranglehold that the Democratic Party held over the SBC for so long has collapsed because of Roe v. Wade. The resulting friendship with the GOP is something so startling that virtually nobody would have predicted it as recently as 1970. The SBC’s connection with the GOP is not yet any sort of blind loyalty, but is issue-oriented and genuine. It has not yet come anywhere near the kinds of improprieties that we demonstrated during our marriage with the Democratic Party. By building closer ties with the GOP, Southern Baptists have proven that neither party had better take us for granted—that we will go where our convictions take us regardless of past history with a party. I think that is an extremely healthy thing.
When we point out the flaws and failings of the Moral Majority and the Religious Right, we ought to be careful not merely to look back and compare those days with some idealized notion of an apolitical SBC; rather, we should compare it with the trajectory in which the SBC was headed while joined at the hip with the Democratic Party. Our erstwhile lockstep union with the Democrats was unhealthy. Something needed to change, and change it did.
Yes, it is true from my perspective that I would be less likely to write about some Evangelicals and Southern Baptists these days using my former words: “The SBC’s connection with the GOP is not yet any sort of blind loyalty, but is issue-oriented and genuine.” And yet, the controversies of this year related to Donald Trump have in some way proven those words still to ring with some truth. Our connection with the GOP is conditional, not doctrinaire.
For any who think that the Religious Right shackled us to a political party, please do not neglect to acknowledge that it broke our chains to another political party. If we have an opportunity to maintain a healthy and principled independence today, we owe a debt of gratitude for that opportunity in large part to our predecessors. The best tribute we pay to them may be our determination to prevent the convention from ever developing again any sort of a political allegiance that would run as contrary to our principles as our Democratic alliance had proven to be.
I’m not saying there’s not still some truth there, but it may be down to a whisper of a hint of a suggestion of a possibility of truth. I think this election proved that if you nominate someone far enough to the left to attract Democrats, you can still dependably rely on Republicans, especially Christians to vote for your candidate.
Nevertrumpers should especially be grateful to the religious right; without them we would now be talking of President Hillary and would have a radical pro-abortion, liberal / progressive administration.
David R. Brumbelow
As a #NeverTrumporClinton voter, I am not grateful to the old Christian Right. Now we have a President who is a sexual predator, and he is presiding over a racist, anti-semitic administration.
Define “racist” and “anti-semitic” in terms of Trump, his writings or actions.
Is he racist because of his immigration policies? For desiring that American citizens (by birth or legal residency/citizenship) should have first priority in all things American (regardless if that American citizen is yellow, red, black or white). Is it “racist” in desiring that people follow the law in terms of immigration = that if you have to wait for the darkest of night to slip over a border then that very act should tell you if you are doing the right or wrong thing. He is racist for that? Is he racist to believe that people who come from a region of the world where most of those who wish to harm Americans come from that they get the strictest of scrutiny before entering the US where you live?
To tell the truth I don’t know where the anti-semitic claims come from except in some one’s pure imagination. His transition team is chock full of Jewish advisors. Perhaps they are more Orthodox than Reformed which bridles mainstream Jews in this country = hence the “anti-semitism” comments.
As to the claims of being a sexual predator this is a little more concerning. One must give weight when the claims of sexual harassment occurred (some accusers were sharing about years ago activity which they were just now sharing to the world during a presidential election). The taped conversation recorded eleven years ago was very concerning and not helpful at all. What IS redeeming about it is that the candidate himself went on national television and testified how wrong it was for him to do that, and made his apologies. Now….we live in the world of God’s grace and forgiveness. You seem to be suggesting that grace is impotent in view of a person’s failures and sins which he sought public contrition for – especially if it someone you personally loathe.
Of course what fails to live in sharp contrast to you it seems is that Trump’s opponent and her moral failures: who consistent public equivocations and lies about a host of issues. Her failure to hold her own husband to account for his multiple sexual indiscretions, harassments, and sexual assaults, of him even going for multiple trips to “Orgy Island” with a known convicted pedophile. Her “Pay-to-Play” schemes that used a supposed charitable entity to enrich herself and her family members. KNOWING WHO SHE WOULD APPOINT TO HIGH OFFICE INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT. All of her errors she has doubled down on without a inch of contrition or apology except perhaps “I made an error” after multiple denials. No Jeff = the NeverTrumpers never weighed this against the other, telling themselves that it did not matter much. IT DID MATTER. A LOT. TO A LOT OF PEOPLE YOU DON’T THINK HIGHLY OF RIGHT NOW.
I tire of people who question my morality, my Christianity, my education, my ministry because I made a tough decision on election day. Jeff – it is far time to move on.
Rob
My problem with Bannon and Breitbart is that it simply publishes lies. Bald-faced lies. They are a click-bait site totally lacking in journalistic integrity – and now that influence is in the White House?
I’ve seen Breitbart articles labeling a guy as a “Renegade Jew.” That’s definitely crossing a line.
I had to explain to a man in my church that, no, Beth Moore did not endorse Hillary Clinton – that’s just another Breitbart lie. Andrew Breitbart had integrity. The online journal that bears his name abandoned it. Beth Moore simply said that when we say that Trump being a sexual predator is “no big deal” it is hurtful to women who have been the victims of sexual violence. Breitbart then ran an article about how she was “standing in the gap for Hillary.” I saw it shared on Facebook. She never said ONE WORD about supporting Hillary. It was a big fat Breitbart lie. That’s the level of integrity I’ve come to expect from Breitbart – none.
Breitbart seldom publishes an article that tells the truth. It’s one lie after the other. That Trump would pick Bannon is disturbing to me. It saddens me.
Yes, Hillary lied. Does that mean that the right should lie too? Is that what we’ve come to, a situational ethic whereby we determine right and wrong by what “they” do?
Jeff, Anti-semitic??? Wow, there is no end to ridiculousness is there?
Trump hired Steve Bannon, who runs the racist, anti-Semitic White Nationalist website Breitbart, to be his Chief Advisor.
Mr. Ayers,
I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton, so I do not feel the need to defend her. Nevertheless, your reasoning is rather bizarre. For example:
HIllary “failure to hold her own husband to account for his multiple sexual indiscretions,” is just as bad as Trump actually sexually assaulting women?
According to you, we are supposed to forgive Trump for his sexual assaults, but when Hillary forgave Bill, it was “failure to hold her own husband to account for his multiple sexual indiscretions.”
Regarding, grace and forgiveness, Trump has said that he has never asked God for forgiveness and doesn’t think that he needs to.
Prove that Bannon is anti-semitic beyond the cheap parting shot of a divorcing wife that was a bit ambiguous. Breitbart has employed multiple Jewish writers and thinkers including David Horowitz (who by the way wrote the article about Bill Kristol, not Bannon). The only reason Ben Shapiro left was a personality clash and not because he believed Bannon was a racist. Read his article posted today.
How about this: hypocrisy. How hypocritical was it to “forgive” her husband and yet chastise her opponent? Her husband did so much more than Trump has ever been accused of. I don’t believe she really forgave, but just more or less accepts his weakness as is. They have not lived in the same house for years, and the marriage that they have is obviously “open.” He was just a vehicle to get her into a more powerful position. I am willing to say that this observation is just my opinion and I have no basis of fact (like psychological interviews) to prove it. Just as is the fact that we don’t know if Trump actually acted out his “locker room” talk. Just a bunch of accusations tossed out there by folks who had a vested interest in the result of the disclosure. Such as yourself.
My point to you was not if Trump believes in forgiveness or if he needs to seek it. Do WE need to grant it to him in the face of his public apology? How about it? For the record I forgave the Clintons long ago. My only purpose of bringing them up was to weight the discussion because NeverTrumpers never do so.
In your reply, you did not withdrawal or explain your disparaging of fellow believers making a hard choice. For the record I blame you for nothing and would not have blamed you at all if the results had been different. You had a difficult choice to make too, and it is not that choice that I am disparaging here. Unfortunately you do not give me the same courtesy.
Rob
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/15/bill-kristol-republican-spoiler-renegade-jew/
After he appointed Breitbart’s Bannon, I think the jury is still out on how thankful Christians are going to be about a Trump presidency and how much of a moral improvement it will be.
I hope it will be superior, but racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and such things are not morally superior to liberalism. Let’s hope Trump pilots the ship in a new direction.
I consider myself a part of the “religous right” of whom you speak. For me, to approach my responsibility to spread the Gospel in any manner other than from a Radical perspective, is a cop out on my part. I, at least, must go out of my way to stand up for and verbalize what I feel God has led me to do and say.
The religious right may well have done us a favor in tipping the balance to Trump over Clinton when those were our only two choices. Time will tell. But they also bear responsibility for giving us Trump the nominee in the first place. And by electing Trump, we have given up our ability to make moral observations about the things Trump does (at least some). Sexual sin, for example, is off the table. Rudy Guiliani and Newt Gingrich are adulterers, multiple in Gingrich’s situation. Can Trump supporters raise a moral objection to having these men in Trump’s cabinet? Of course they can’t.
You can’t always answer for the people who support you, but when David Duke, the Ku Klux Klan, the alt-right, white nationalists, and the American Nazi Party are celebrating your victory, someone ought to be concerned. Elevating Bannon is responsible for much of the celebration among these groups.
I imagine then Bill since 3/4’s of all politicians are morally abhorrent, Christians should just cloister themselves in their homes and never come out. Such righteous piety and indignation would please the Pharisees. Most of us have been on record that we did not support Trump but anybody else during the primaries but that does not keep you from spouting off that nonsense. Cease with the genetic fallacy = if a detestable group agrees with you that somehow invalidates what you believe or that confirms you agree with them with all things. What unmitigated carp.
It is time for all people (including myself) to understand that others are not the instigators of our troubles = we would rather need to look inside ourselves for the problems of our world and not the bogeymen who live in the world.
Rob
If a Christian decides that a candidate’s sexual immorality does not matter enough to disqualify him from their support, it stands to reason that the same Christian cannot reasonably oppose that candidate’s staffing picks based on standards of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality certainly matters to you, but if you supported Trump then it did not matter enough to make you stop supporting him. That’s fine. Lots of people decided that. But it seems unlikely, even if you were inclined, that you can reasonably gainsay any of his cabinet choices based on their sexual immorality.
If a bunch of despicable groups of people are supporting you, you might at least be curious as to why that is. Has Trump given the alt-right any reason to believe he will advance their agenda?
Sure sexual immorality matters to me. But both candidates were guilty of immorality = so what’s next? One of them will be President so my choice was to stay home or vote for principles and not the candidate. My prayer is that the new President will have some wisdom and listen to the wisdom of his Vice-President who is a good guy = or is Mike Pence somehow tainted by association?
My goodness man if you are so rigid never read Psalm 23 again, = ever. It’s author was a murderer and an adulterer.
In this sin infested world who would be guiltless of any immorality? How about yourself? Any tapes out there that you should be worried about? I’ve got plenty = and I am not running for anything.
Has he given anything to those destable groups besides the fact that he will leave them alone? Perhaps you know of something else besides slide innuendos and guilt by association.
Rob
You seem to be skirting the very specific issue I’m talking about. Trump’s sexual immorality is well documented and pretty egregious. You felt that it didn’t matter enough to lose your support. That’s fine. Now I don’t know if you have any reservations about Giuliani or Gingrich as members of Trump’s cabinet based on their adulterous history, but even if you did, don’t you think you’d be hard pressed to bring it up, based on Trump’s history and your support for him?
I understand that we’re all sinners, but using that argument to excuse or overlook immorality is a relatively novel approach for Christians interested in politics.
I have not overlooked morality. These people are not in my church and they are not being appointed to teach Sunday School. I only wish that they would accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ and receive God’s best: the sacrifice of the Son for the vilest of their sins. Documented? Besides the multiple marriages and the tape what other evidence do you have? Unsubstantiated accusations are just that = and they look poorer in the face of when they were announced. “Qui Bono.”
Shucks Bill we are not asking these people to take a church position. If I could choose I would choose somebody different but I don’t have that power. I was forced to weigh my principles against two people whose warts glowed radioactive. I had an inkling of hope with one = I had none with the other. The inkling won. End of story. Though you do seem to be transfixed with the sexual immorality thing. Are there no other sins out there that give you pause?
How about this quote: “He who is without sin……” – you know the rest.
Rob
“He who is without sin…”. Yeah, I do know the rest. But I would like to know how you are applying the verse.
As a personal reminder to me – and a reference for everybody else 🙂
Rob
The question here Dave is if Bannon or Breitbart the website is antisemitic – not if they have integrity. Like many blogs they have a multitude of authors whose web titles are often designed to gain traffic and clicks (something I personally find abhorrent but there it is). The article you posted was written by a Jew, David Horowitz, calling out another Jew, Bill Kristol, for his NeverTrumpism and how detrimental it would be to JEWS WHO LIVED IN ISRAEL AND AROUND THE WORLD! His concluding paragraph:in that article you posted is proof to my point:
“I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered — Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas — have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to not be easily forgiven.” – David Horowitz
You may believe that the title is over the top – I may agree with you. However the article itself is far from being antisemitic – it is the other way around. For pity sake before posting as evidence an article as proof, read the article for context to see if it proves your point or not.
Rob
I linked to one of the anti-Semitic articles.
Dave
Of which I just quoted from that same “ant-semitic” article. Click it and read the last paragraph. Compare my quote to it = it is the same. Look at the author = David Horowitz = a Jew. He defends Jews and Israel in that “anti-semitic” article = the exact same one you linked to. What exactly is your definition then of “anti semitism”?
Rob
Can anyone, anyone, on here provide proof that Brannon is anti-semite? On the contrary, search far and wide and you won’t find that proof. You guys can do better.
Bannon. But still waiting.
Cricket…..Cricket.
Rob – no one is EVER under any obligation to blog, or to comment. You can cricket al day, but it means nothing. People have lives, jobs, grandkids. Blogging is an avocation.
That “cricket” thing is annoying. I’m not sure if it was directed at me, but I am so far behind right now it will be 2022 before I’m caught up. I don’t have time for this and I’m not obligated to answer your posts until I have the time and the desire.
So, cricket cricket all you want. It means NOTHING.
No Dave it was not directed at you. You are not the first to make the accusation – though you never answered my response about your link.
Again my discussion on this post is over. I am sad that brothers are now in the state of affairs this culture has brought us,
Rob
“You had a difficult choice to make too”
Not really. Not voting for an ignorant, racist, lifelong liberal, totally unqualified sexual predator like Trump was a very easy choice.
Until about a year ago only liberals said that character didn’t matter when selecting a president. Now the old Christian Right has taken the liberal position, saying that Trump’s character doesn’t matter, even though most of them said the exact opposite regarding Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Mr. Jeff,
Perhaps you are not that old. You don’t sound like you were alive or at minimum were very young in 1992 when Bill Clinton was first elected (if I am wrong on this I repent). Since you are spouting nonsense, let me give you a history lesson. The whispers of sexual impropriety in Clinton’s case were merely a whisper. He claimed no knowledge of anything, so on that score most people gave him the benefit of the doubt. The “Religious Right” was divided for Clinton’s two elections = though people like me voted for Bush 1 and Doe because of one specific moral purpose = to champion those who would defend the unborn and the helpless. It was only during Clinton’s second term that the sexual immorality that occurred in the Oval office that we discovered that the rumors and accusations were pretty much true. Clinton had denied to the American people and under oath in a deposition that any sexual impropriety with Monica Lewinsky had occurred – but the blue dress told the truth. He was a liar and a perjurer. Not only had he sullied his office, but as the Chief law enforcement officer of the nation he was not honest with the truth. Do you know of any people, who when caught having sex at work who keep their job? He got off because the majority of people in the nation as well as in Congress did not want to put the nation in a constitutional crisis because of sex = but it was far more than that. As it was he lost his law license and paid some hefty fines for his transgressions, which by all accounts he continues to do so to this day with the tacit approval of his spouse.
Character does matter Mr. Jeff. Again you are only presenting one side of the ethical dilemma. You are ignoring the fact that this was a binary election, and one of two people were to get the prize of which both were ethically and morally challenged. Again you made your choice. Why don’t you just give the rest Godspeed and leave it in His hands? You believe in sovereignty right?
Rob
This is completely untrue. Clinton’s peccadillos were well known (but denied) before he was ever elected.
And Jeff is 100% right.
On my personal (and mostly inactive) blog, I published a letter from James Dobson from the Clinton impeachment era. He was chastising the Democrats for making the EXACT arguments he was making during this election. Point by point he took to task those who said what the (what used to be called) values voters were saying this year.
It was sad.
Dave,
I don’t have to agree with James Dobson. I think he is a good man. I think you are too.
I think am done. Things are too raw for me to continue – as it is with everyone else too.
Rob
“The ‘Religious Right’ was divided for Clinton’s two elections.” What kind of revisionist history is this? Name one major Christian Right leader who endorsed Clinton in either 1992 or 1996? There were NONE. The only division among the Christian Right was between those who endorsed Bush and Dole, and those who didn’t. James Dobson, for example, voted third party in 1996 because he didn’t like Dole, whom he regarded as too moderate.
I’m kinda sick of folks saying Trump supporters have determined that character no longer matters. That’s NOT what most of us are saying. One last time and please try to pay attention….
1. Character matters.
2. The election was a binary choice—Clinton or Trump.
3. Both characters are more or less equally disgusting.
4. Since character is a draw, we evaluate other matters.
5. The Trump agenda is superior to the Clinton agenda.
To summarize, character matters, but in this particular case, it was not the decisive voting factor, since the factor was a draw. (Trump is crude and Hillary should be in jail.)
The agenda linked below was the decisive factor. As a side note, I found out yesterday that, under Obamacare, my sister’s health insurance is going up 100% next year. To ask someone to move from paying $700 to $1,400 in one year is absurd. This MUST be repealed.
http://bit.ly/2eDhQrK
Rick: I’m not saying you think character doesn’t matter. But I am trying to make the point that for Trump supporters, his character didn’t matter enough to make you stop supporting him. Right? I understand why people came to that conclusion. But I think taking that approach has consequences. I think it is very difficult to reasonably make judgments on the president-elect’s decisions, particularly his cabinet picks, based on the character of the people being considered. You can make judgments about their experience for the job, but it seems to me that their moral character is now off the table. Do you really think you can object to Gingrich based on his marital fidelity (not that you do object)?
I have heard plenty of Christian Right leaders say something like, “We are not voting for people; we are voting for platforms.” I never heard any Christian Right leader say anything like that before this year. Throughout the entire Bill Clinton era of the 1990s, old Christian Right leaders were very insistent that character in a leader is the most important thing. I was a young man then, and I listened to the Christian Right leaders, and they persuaded me about how important character is in a leader. Now, those same leaders have totally changed their position (because a Republican candidate had bad character). I feel betrayed. I now realize that the old Christian Right is all about POWER, NOT PRINCIPLE.
The old Christian Right was totally discredited by their support of Trump in this election. A new generation of leaders like Russell Moore is rising to champion the moral convictions of the old Christian Right, but they will be different than the old Christian Right in many ways.
As I said in an earlier comment, I’m completely open to the idea that Trump will be a better president than Clinton. To the extent that the old guard religious right tipped the scales in favor of Trump over Clinton, perhaps they will deserve some credit for that. But I think many of those old guard were shilling for Trump right out of the gate, when there were hordes of better choices. We saw high profile evangelicals saying (imo) frankly embarrassing things in their enthusiasm for Trump. I certainly don’t thank them for that. Maybe Trump will be a good president. I hope he is. But I think Christians have lost some credibility in this process. Trump has already gone on record as pro gay marriage.
Bill Mac, first of all should Trump choose cabinet people who have moral flaws, it won’t be the first time. In fact, never has prez made a cabinet appointment who didn’t have character flaws.
Therefore, to expect that anyone who voted for Trump, in spite of his flaws (as Rick has so well stated), to be disqualified from being critical or not critical of his appointees is absurd.
But more likely the argument by those of us who voted for Tump is or can be that there is some degree of moral flaw we would tolerate in cabinet appointees (which all of us have to tolerate SOME flaws, right?) and therefore be critical or supportive of said appointees based on their competence for the job.
Rick’s comments are spot on and can be applied across the board.
“Trump has already gone on record as pro gay marriage.”
Yes he did say that the matter had been settled by the SCOUTS. That’s a flaw in my opinion. But at least it’s not a deadly flaw like, say, slaughtering babies.
Well maybe the SCOUTS have settled it too. Auto correct. SCOTUS.
Les: Obviously this isn’t about finding someone without moral flaws. But we all draw a line somewhere. What I’m saying is that Trump supporters cannot reasonably hold his cabinet picks to a higher moral standard than they held Trump. Frankly I don’t know of they are even inclined to do that. So other than support for abortion rights, which seems to be the moral line that you and others drew in deciding to support Trump, most everything else is pretty much off the table.
Bill Mac, I am not keeping up with the news as much this week as other things preoccupy. So I’ve probably missed it. But who among the Evangelical Trump voters is raising moral objections to his rumored cabinet picks? Who among this group is crying out for a higher moral standard than they held Trump to?
I guess I’m wondering if this is happening in a widespread manner already or, are you just trying to get out in front of it should Rick, or I or other evangelical Trump voters start crying moral foul with his appointees?
No Trump supporter is, and I don’t expect them to.
Bill Mac, then your’re boxing a self made shadow.
Once the bar is lowered, it is very difficult to raise it again. At this point, I’m not sure people are even inclined to try.
Rick, that is a dodge, I’m afraid.
When it was Clinton, we said character was a PRIMARY issue – a disqualifying issue.
You are saying it is secondary – a relative issue. We have gone from objective morality to subjective morality. Situational ethics.
It is no longer, “Is a candidate morally upright,” but “Is he (or she) better than the other.”
I think there has to be a line beyond which people will not go if we want to call ourselves “values voters.” If we claim morality and decency matter, then there are boundaries that we cannot cross.
If we vote for a serial adulterer and (possibly) sexual predator, how can we say that sexual morality matters to us? We compromised that on the altar of beating Hillary. Beating Hillary mattered more than morality.
If we cross lines, can we say we still honor those lines?
You are a master at political spin, Rick, but I’m not buying it.
Put more directly, the next time the “Religious Right” criticizes someone for their morality, our culture will laugh in our face and we will have little recourse but to hang our heads.
Important addendum: of course, I realize that not everyone sees it my way and that voting is a matter of conscience. I’m expressing my convictions, not universal dictates. These are my strong convictions, but I accept that others, under the Lordship of Christ, will disagree.
Dave,
I don’t expect you to agree with anything I say, but the fact remains, when we were talking about Clinton years ago, there was an opposing candidate possessing an acceptable level of character. Not anticipating the present discussion, the rhetoric became, “Clinton does not have the character to be President.” Understood in that rhetoric was, “…but the other candidate DOES.”
In 2016, nearly every Trump voter I know reasoned thusly: “Neither Clinton nor Trump have the character to be President, but by golly, one of them is definitely going to be President, so our deciding factor, our tie breaker if you will, is going to be something else, in light of their tie score on character.”
I really don’t buy your whole situational ethics discussion. Ours is a consistent ethic applied to two very different situations.
I’d love to agree with you sometime, but you have to do your part on that.
You are doing historical rewrite here. We USED to say right is right and wrong is wrong and there are lines that shouldn’t be crossed.
I’ll make an unverifiable wager with you.
If you went back in time and told your 1998 self you’d be voting for a serial adulterer with multiple marriages and divorces, each of which was caused by his cheating, who bragged about sexually assaulting women and was accused of such by several women, who during the campaign praised Planned Parenthood and waved a rainbow flag in support of gay marriage, and also expressed support for so-called bathroom equality – your 1996 self would say that there is no way you would ever vote for such a man.
Spin away, but in your heart, I think you know I’m right. The difference here is that I’m applying the same standards to Trump that I applied to Clinton.
with over 80 percent of evangelicals supporting Trump, it is difficult to praise the Never Trumpers who, for years, pandered to the alt-right
I’m afraid for your witness. Please pray for discernment. Please honor Christ as He should be honored and not as the neo-Cal wing of your SBC has thrown Him to the curb. I will pray for you.
The sanctimonious arrogance, disdain for others, and even hate, in this comment is pretty instructive.
You probably need to work on dealing with your anger and hatefulness, Christiane.
The last time I looked, this post hadn’t dropped yet. Now I look and it has 46 comments. Most of them are really more about the recent election than about what I was really trying to say. Whether that because of poor writing on my part or the environment right now, I can’t say.
I will, however, put a comment in here to reiterate what I’m getting at:
1. If you’re mad at the religious right because you think they caused the SBC to get too entangled with a political agenda, I’m encouraging you to take note of the fact that they also actually DISentangled the convention from a political agenda. Give them respect for having done that, because their job (toppling a 140-year partisan alliance) was a whole lot harder than yours (toppling a one-generation partisan alliance). You also might take a moment to consider whether, if you got your way, you might wind up creating the same thing, but just with a different agenda.
2. If you’re part of the religious right and mad at people who criticize it and who don’t toe the party line, I’m encouraging you to take note of the fact that your movement is born of precisely the same sort of attitude—the willingness to jettison party allegiances (back then, to the Democrats) when they ask you to cross a line that you cannot cross. If you should ever become a mindless Republican for whom issues and candidates could never shake you no matter what, you would be a poor reflection of the founders of your movement, who were made of tougher and more independent stock.
1a. If you’re mad and continue to be mad, and let your anger drive you, you may have other problems. “The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God”. “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” does not only apply in personal relationships.
It’s beginning to disturb me how much anger has been part of this election, both before and after, and on both the left and the right. “Do not let the sun go down on your anger” is followed up by “and give no opportunity to the devil”. If are primarily driven by anger, are we in fact giving him that opportunity?
There are reasons for this anger on both the left and the right.
(1) As the power of the executive branch has grown, more is at stake in each presidential election.
(2) The presidential campaign lasts for nearly two years now, dominating political discussion and sucking up every issue into it.
(3) People are less involved in churches, community organizations, and local government. All of their political energy is directed towards a presidential election that they basically have no control over.
(4) As Christianity has declined in America, politics has become almost like a religion for many people. When their candidate loses, it is almost like their god has failed.
(5) Increasingly, America has embraced a “cult of the Presidency.” The Founders conceived of the Presidency as an office with carefully defined and limited constitutional roles. But now the President is perceived as somebody who can make the economy grow, solve all problems at all levels of government, and crush all of America’s enemies.
I have no doubt there are reasons behind the anger. I’m just questioning whether letting the anger be ongoing and a driving force in our lives is biblical.
I can see where being involved politically is necessary. I cannot see where letting politics consume us in rage and anger is even permissible.
Absolutely Right, Ben.
I’m not trying to justify the anger of people, just trying to look at the reasons why people are angry. Personally, I was angry about Clinton’s victories in the 1990s, and I would have been angry if Bush 43 had lost in the 2000s. But in more recent elections, I have become increasingly indifferent to who wins, especially in this most recent one, where I voted for every down-ticket office, but did not cast a vote for President.
Bannon himself said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. The alt-right’s definition and agenda is a bit of a moving target, but it is certainly associated with white nationalism, misogyny, and anti-semitism. I don’t know why people appear to think anti-semitism is worse than misogyny, but even if we admit that the “renegade Jew” article is possibly not anti-semitic, the fact that Breitbart is the platform for misogyny is indisputable. Bannon owns that, and he brings that to the White House. Now, that may be nothing new considering the president-elect’s record during the campaign, but I think people were hoping Trump might at least appear to be trying to leave that behind.
In the past, American conservatism was often strongly influenced by the Christian idea that all people were created in the image of God. Therefore, American conservatives resisted the identity politics of the left that focused on race and gender and instead insisted on universal values of the freedom, dignity, and responsibility of every individual.
Now, however, Christianity is declining in America, and we are starting to see the emergence of an “alt-right”, which we could think of as a “post-Christian” right. It is often based on evolutionary biology and views society as a struggle between different racial groups for dominance. Therefore, the alt-right has basically adopted the identity politics of the left, contending for “white identity” or “white nationalism.” Trump adopted an economic platform designed for the anxieties of the white working class – protectionism instead of free trade, anti-immigration, preserve social insurance programs in their current form, a more nationalist foreign policy. Trump has also adopted the authoritarian persona and love of violence common among right wing nationalists in Europe.
Misogony is also part of the alt-right. As Ross Douthat and others have argued, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump represent different sides of the sexual revolution. Hillary Clinton represents the feminist career woman. Donald Trump embodies the philosophy of Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner – the alpha male who has sex with lots of beautiful women, using them for his pleasure while holding them in contempt. “Like Trumpism, Hefnerian values have prospered in the blue-collar vacuum created by religion’s retreat, community’s unraveling” (Douthat). And also, Douthat writes, “Among men who were promised pliant centerfolds and ended up single with only high-speed internet to comfort them, the men’s sexual revolution has curdled into a toxic subculture, resentful of female empowerment in all its forms. This is where you find Trump’s strongest (and, yes, strangest) fans. He’s become the Daddy Alpha for every alpha-aspiring beta male.”
Many white evangelicals will find the alt-right to be a great temptation. The alt-right has a lot of nostalgia about the past when white men were more dominant, and white evangelicals are also often nostalgic about the past, looking at the 1950s as a lost golden age. White evangelicals don’t like feminism or the identity politics of left. White evangelicals also like “law and order” and are fearful of black crime. And white evangelicals are also becoming fond of a Facebook culture that specializes in outrage about sensational stories and snarky memes about racial themes.
If we white evangelical men choose to follow the alt-right path as described, maybe those that do are not following the path called the narrow way. As much as I detested the thought of a Hillary presidency, I could not bring myself to vote for Trump. And although I don’t like the identity politics of the left or extreme feminism, and I do iike law and order, but I think blacks are the ones who should be fearful of black crime. And face book is a place for [me] friends and families and church family to interact and keep in touch. And if any of my people would get overly outraged or delve into racist themes, I would be glad to set them straight.
There are a lot of people who call themselves Christian who simply aren’t. In my circle, they tend to be more liberal and non-church going than alt-right people.
The slide downward [unless the Lord has mercy] this country is on will separate the nominal Christians from the true believers and will negatively affect us as a convention is various ways but the tree must be pruned if it is to grow in a healthy way.
As Mike said in another thread op: don’t compromise the Gospel truth.
I am not able to grasp the parallel universe going on here. First the discussion is about the “religious right” and then all of a sudden the term “alt – right” comes out of nowhere. Could someone help me by defining terms?
Or stated another way: What is the difference between the “religious right” and the “alt-right”? Is the “alt-right” a political movement, a social movement, a subset of Christianity (or some amalgam of these thee) ? I never heard of the term “alt-right” until last week when Trump won the election.
How about this for a working definition: “Those who voted for Trump constitute the alt right” ?
Roger
Only a tiny percentage of Trump voters are “alt-right.” The alt-right is an obscure movement that is found mostly outline. Breitbart.com is probably the most well known purveyor of alt-right thought, and the hiring of Steve Bannon represents the high point of the alt-right. It is hard to be certain how much alt-right stuff Trump has read, but he definitely advocates much of their themes and style, and the alt-right has been very enthusiastic about him.
The alt-right rejects “Fusionist” Conservatism, that is, the conservatism that emerged in the post World War II era based on the fusion of Burkean traditionalism (change should be slow and in continuity with the past), the economics of classic liberalism (free markets & free trade), and a foreign policy of containment (do whatever necessary to contain communism to the countries it already was in); in the last case a neo-conservative foreign policy of spreading democracy to middle eastern countries became dominant.
While mainstream conservatism emphasizes universal principles of freedom, dignity, and responsibility for individuals, the alt-right emphasizes white identity and the need for whites to fight for their race collectively. While mainstream conservatism emphasizes free markets and free trade, the alt-right emphasizes protectionism and government interference to protect the jobs of working class white. While mainstream conservatism emphasizes constitutional limits on government, the alt-right admires more authoritarian forms of government such as monarchy and fascist dictatorships. While mainstream conservatism emphasizes America’s role in maintaining global stability, the alt-right favors a more nationalistic foreign policy that only seeks what is in the best interest of America. While mainstream conservatism has often appreciated the economic contributions immigrants might make America, the alt-right fiercely opposes immigration because it might dilute America’s white identity.
Jeff: Thanks for getting me up to speed on the alt-right. Based upon the definition of alt-right I say that some of its key ideas are not widely held.
But the idea of protectionism is definitely one of the key factors that animated support for Trump. The argument that the country is better off because consumer prices are lower for many manufactured items under a free trade regime doesn’t have much meaning to thousands of displaced workers who used to make furniture in North Carolina, pour steel in Pennsylvania, make televisions in Springfield MO, or run wafer fab lines in Silicon Valley.
It is probably the case that — in aggregate — consumer prices of manufactured goods are cheaper by $X due to imported products while the reduction of wages formerly earned was “only” maybe $X/2. So the country enjoys a net benefit economically. But this in not much solace to the guys living in Lenoir NC or any of a dozen places where they used to make furniture.
Personally, I don’t mind paying an implicit “tax” on products to put people in the USA back to work. But consumers can not do much to buy American anymore: my Corvette was built in Bowling Green KY — but many of the parts in that car came from Mexico or Canada.
Regardless of whatever is going on with Trump one thing is clear to me. Leaders on the Hill on both sides of the aisle have been asleep at the switch regarding the de-industrialization of the USA. They need to step up to the plate to solve this [with tariffs if necessary]. Otherwise, “radical” political movements are going to gain even more traction.
Personally, I don’t think racism is a major component in this discussion. But there is no denying that a component of the rebellion is immigration.
And, at least a section of the alt-right are pro-abortion. See, for example, http://www.radixjournal.com/journal/2016/4/8/the-pro-life-temptation. This part seems to have a fair bit in common with Margaret Sanger.
Yes, I don’t think they have a uniform position on abortion. They generally seem to want whites to have a higher birth rate, while they want other races to have more abortions. They generally dislike abortion among whites, since it enables feminism, which they really hate.
Obviously, the alt-right is a lot different from evangelical Christianity. The alt-right is based heavily on Evolutionary ideas of the “survival of the fittest” and pseudo-scientific ideas about how races have evolved to be different from one another. The alt-right mainly seems to like Christianity insofar as Christianity is part of a “western civilization” that the alt-right wants to protect from other races. Evangelical intellectuals and the majority of active evangelical church-attenders will be able to see the alt-right for what it is, and they will be able to resist it. But a lot of the alt-right will have an appeal to people on the fringe of evangelical churches – people who rarely or never attend or people who do attend but haven’t been adequately discipled.
Some of this discussion of the alt-right may become irrelevant, as it is becoming obvious that Trump can’t really find enough qualified alt-right people to staff a cabinet and is going to have to appoint a lot of traditional Republicans.
I think Trump is more embraced by the alt-right than he embraces them. Yes, he’s elevated Bannon, but more because he sees Bannon as effective, rather than because of his ideology. I think Trump’s ideology is whatever is most convenient at the moment.
The Apple IPhone costs about $600, made in China. If made in the US, it would cost about $2000 or more. You can raise tariffs to the roof, those jobs aren’t coming back. These guys need to talk to an economist or two. If companies remain in, or return to the US, they aren’t going to invest in human capital, they will invest in automation. There’s no question that free trade hurts some people, but it helps more people than it hurts.
Yes, most economists favor free trade, and what you say is correct. But more working class whites in the midwest don’t know many economists. While the world overall may be better off from free trade, it hasn’t been good for those workers out of jobs. Also, the mass migration of hundreds of millions of Chinese people from farms in the country to work in factories in the cities was an event of huge historical significance. Free trade with China resulted in a huge number of jobs lost in the U.S. At this point, we can’t get the toothpaste back in the tube, though. Slapping a 50% tarriff on China isn’t going to make jobs go back to the Midwest. But we at least should understand why the white working class in the midwest doesn’t trust the political class that has been running the U.S. for the last few decades.
The terms “liberal” and “conservative” come from early 19th century England. The “liberals” favored free trade, while conservatives opposed it, as the conservatives view it as too disruptive (for example, cheap imported corn would threaten the dominance of the traditional landed aristocracy). So, it shouldn’t be too surprising that the conservative party in America would end up opposing free trade.
Jeff,
Agreed. A lot of people don’t realize that for a lot of companies, it isn’t a choice between going overseas or staying local and employing people, it’s a choice between going overseas and going out of business.
I would suggest a big part of the SBC and its members switching allegiances from democrat to republican has as much or more to do with the same migration that occurred among southern whites in general as the Democratic Party became the party that championed civil rights. In the same time period that you speak of, all of the south has slowly changed from blue to red.
That is an interesting perspective, Ben, but I don’t think it is completely accurate.
Certainly, racism has been the stain on the SBC’s history, and the reality of racism as a driving force cannot be denied.
But having been part of the transition during this time, I do not believe that racism drove the leaders of the SBC during that time. By the time the CR came along and the transition was being completed, racism was not a driving force.
Racism was strongly present in the SBC church membership. It still is – we saw that recently when a church dismissed its pastor for inviting black children to VBS. But among pastors and leaders, there were two problems.
1. A fear of fighting the fight. Many pastors did not confront the sin of racism in their churches. They allowed their leaders and members to be “good Baptists” while also being racists. They did not show how racism was a violation of the gospel intent of Chrit.
2. An simplistic and naively optimistic sense that the war was won. “There are no racists here.” I’ve heard that here over and over. “We repented of racism, why keep bringing it up?” We want to sweep it and its ugly effects under the rug. “Why can’t they just get over it? – forgive and forget?”
But while your point has some validity, I do not believe that it is the only issue. It is the kind of thing those who hate the SBC might say to discredit us. But the truth is much more complicated than that.
Understand. Thanks for the interaction Dave. I agree, things are more complicated then just that one issue. Just thought it was worth considering that at the same time the SBC switched political allegiances, so to were many around them. But like you say, the reasons were multi-faceted.
The current democrats do not champion civil rights.
They champion identity politics (just like the republicans) which includes but is not solely focused on skin color.
Identity politics – when either side “side” uses it – is disingenuous and bad for America.
As for the church – we should be about making disciples and training those disciples that their identity is Christ and in Him alone.
Bannon just said in an interview that “darkness is good” and was speaking admirably of Satan. So maybe we won’t be thanking the religious right after all.
We could say that the “alt-right” is the “post-Christian right.” As Christianity declines in influence in America, the American right will become more defined by white identity and populist opposition to globalism. The alt-right will have some overlap with conservative Christianity, but it will also be different in many ways, particularly regarding race, but also regarding sexuality (the altr-right also dislikes feminism, but it tends to embrace the sexual morality of a man like Donald Trump). For evangelical Christians to maintain a distinctive and effective witness, they will have to become more politically independent.
Bill Mac,
Not a Bannon fan or of the choice for him to be an advisor to the future President – but your statements attributing those comments to Bannon seems a little scandalous, if accurate….would you mind providing a link?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/18/politics/steve-bannon-donald-trump-hollywood-reporter-interview/index.html
Praying Christians should ask God to see that Bannon’s influence wanes and other voices gains Trump’s ear and his respect.
Well that interview on CNN is interesting, for not least of which is the video they posted does not contain the quote about satan that they printed in the text of the story. I wonder what the sentences on either side of that satan quote would say. Context matter much?
Nothing in the posted video interview bothers me at all. He is alleged to stand for all sorts of things yet where’s the proof os such?
So, to say he was speaking admirably os satan, based only on what CNN released, is a stretch.
“Darkness is good,” says Bannon, who amid the suits surrounding him at Trump Tower, looks like a graduate student in his T-shirt, open button-down and tatty blue blazer — albeit a 62-year-old graduate student. “Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power. It only helps us when they” — I believe by “they” he means liberals and the media, already promoting calls for his ouster — “get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”
tp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747
Thanks Debbie. Still not very clear that he is a satan admirer. But thanks.
Based on that comment it does seem to be a stretch….
“Darkness is good”. Dick Cheney, Darth Vader, Satan, that’s power”.
I don’t know how you spin that into something benign. I doubt he’s a Satan worshiper any more than I think he thinks Darth Vader is real. But he is extolling the efficacy of dark power as a means of achieving certain ends, and he uses Satan as an example. No, I don’t think Trump has elevated a Satanist to chief advisor (not that I think he wouldn’t), but he has elevated someone who will advocate using any means, no matter how dark, to achieve his purposes. I think we saw that clearly during the campaign.
Bill, you know I am not one to spin in favor of Mr. Trump – so that might be a little unfair…
But, I still would like to see the entire interview or read it (unedited) in order to ascertain the context.
Like I said, I am not a Trump defender – but in fairness we have to admit that CNN has been rather biased and uncharitable when it comes to context of his remarks.
(I believe the reason for this is that they were in the tank for Hillary – and not the democrat party – more than “picking on Trump” – but it is very true that CNN is not a stranger to making republicans looks as bad as possible as often as possible.)
CNN is in competition with MSNBC to see which can go the furthermost left the quickest, remember.
*in the tank for Hillary – and now the democrat party
I’m with you Tarheel on this. Christians should not assume the worst about others absent facts. I take “darkness is good” as “We like keeping the media in the dark as much as possible about what we are thinking.” That is power…”to us.” Knowing how the media jumps to all sorts of conclusions, like the comments here do, is it surprising that the Trump want to bypass them and go straight to the people.
Now if we ever see the full quotes in context, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Bannon admires satan. But I still highly doubt it.