Evangelical Christianity and politics - the elephant in the room

[crazy canuck]

A taboo in US (and Canada for that matter) is critically examining the religious beliefs of a politician.  The thought is that their personal beliefs are their own business.

But what happens when politicians state that it is the wish to govern according to their religious beliefs or attempt to appeal to coreligionists on that basis?  Perhaps society should stop giving the free pass and examine this issue more closely.

For those of you who thought Hawley is merely an opportunist - look again.  He is a driven by a deeply religious ideology.

An extract from a NYTimes piece examining his beliefs. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/josh-hawley-religion-democracy.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Contributors

In multiple speeches, an interview and a widely shared article for Christianity Today, Mr. Hawley has explained that the blame for society's ills traces all the way back to Pelagius — a British-born monk who lived 17 centuries ago. In a 2019 commencement address at The King's College, a small conservative Christian college devoted to "a biblical worldview," Mr. Hawley denounced Pelagius for teaching that human beings have the freedom to choose how they live their lives and that grace comes to those who do good things, as opposed to those who believe the right doctrines.

The most eloquent summary of the Pelagian vision, Mr. Hawley went on to say, can be found in the Supreme Court's 1992 opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mr. Hawley specifically cited Justice Anthony Kennedy's words reprovingly: "At the heart of liberty," Kennedy wrote, "is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The fifth century church fathers were right to condemn this terrifying variety of heresy, Mr. Hawley argued: "Replacing it and repairing the harm it has caused is one of the challenges of our day."

In other words, Mr. Hawley's idea of freedom is the freedom to conform to what he and his preferred religious authorities know to be right. Mr. Hawley is not shy about making the point explicit. In a 2017 speech to the American Renewal Project, he declared — paraphrasing the Dutch Reformed theologian and onetime prime minister Abraham Kuyper — "There is not one square inch of all creation over which Jesus Christ is not Lord." Mr. Kuyper is perhaps best known for his claim that Christianity has sole legitimate authority over all aspects of human life.

"We are called to take that message into every sphere of life that we touch, including the political realm," Mr. Hawley said. "That is our charge. To take the Lordship of Christ, that message, into the public realm, and to seek the obedience of the nations. Of our nation!"

And of course he is not alone - that is the message we hear from many evangelicals.

[The Brain]

My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.

[Eddie Teach]

Is that true anywhere?

[Malthus]

Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.

The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.

I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.

The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.

Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.

[The Brain]

Is that true anywhere?

The day a Muslim candidate for top office in a Western country isn't a topic deemed newsworthy it will be.

[Sheilbh]

Evangelicals have the numbers, but I think the really important point is the nexus between evangelical leaders and right-wing (white) Catholics. It would have been unimaginable 50 years ago but I think it provides the intellectual heft of this program/ideology.

The Harvard law professor pushing common law integralism, the Supreme Court justices, caring about Pelagianism, First Things magazine and a lot of its pro-authoritarian content, even someone like Sohrab Ahmari at the NY Post - it's mainly right-wing Catholics. Also see the role played by Archbishop Burke or Vigano and the weird overlap of pro-Trump/anti-Francis ideology in the US church.

And to an extent this is all justified by the soft-version of this which you find in Douthat (Catholic) or Dreher (Orthodox): that current progressive liberal values, especially around gender and sexuality, leave no space for Christians to live in their "faith/truth". One solution, which is pushed by Dreher, is to withdraw from public life - the "Benedict option" and live in communities which define themselves. He looks at the Amish and some Muslim communities as an example. The harder line is obviously some form of integralism. The morality of Trump is entirely irrelevant compared to whether or not they provide a position of power/dominance.

[crazy canuck]

Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.

The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.

I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.

The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.

Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.

I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.


From the NYTimes article.

Christian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.

[Josquius]

If anyone hasn't seen it I found this documentary an excellent examination of the fundamentalist mindset. Worth putting on in the background whilst you cook or the like at least.

https://youtu.be/JTfhYyTuT44

Spoilers ho, but.... Basically the problem with them is that they very genuinely believe the end is nigh. With the biblical apocalypse on the horizon they don't need to think about tomorrow. It's irrelevant what becomes of earth. All that matters is getting spirits ready for the end times.
This is a huge problem as it means you don't have politics of two approaches to fixing the world. You instead have one side who often actively wants to see the world burn to hasten the apocalypse.
Figures like Trump flirting with disaster aren't just a necessary evil to own teh libs. It's a bonus.

[crazy canuck]

Evangelicals have the numbers, but I think the really important point is the nexus between evangelical leaders and right-wing (white) Catholics. It would have been unimaginable 50 years ago but I think it provides the intellectual heft of this program/ideology.

The Harvard law professor pushing common law integralism, the Supreme Court justices, caring about Pelagianism, First Things magazine and a lot of its pro-authoritarian content, even someone like Sohrab Ahmari at the NY Post - it's mainly right-wing Catholics. Also see the role played by Archbishop Burke or Vigano and the weird overlap of pro-Trump/anti-Francis ideology in the US church.

And to an extent this is all justified by the soft-version of this which you find in Douthat (Catholic) or Dreher (Orthodox): that current progressive liberal values, especially around gender and sexuality, leave no space for Christians to live in their "faith/truth". One solution, which is pushed by Dreher, is to withdraw from public life - the "Benedict option" and live in communities which define themselves. He looks at the Amish and some Muslim communities as an example. The harder line is obviously some form of integralism. The morality of Trump is entirely irrelevant compared to whether or not they provide a position of power/dominance.

I agree.  And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen.  It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning. 

[crazy canuck]

My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.

That is not what I claimed.  Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves.  My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.

[Sheilbh]

I agree.  And I think what has happened is that Protestant Evangelicalism didn't have more than looking for signs of the end times and making sure you were one of the chosen.  It took the right wing elements within Catholicism to give a deeper ideological/theological underpinning.

Yes.

And it leads to all sorts of weirdness - the pro-Trump Jericho March in December which had a Catholic Priest blessing an image of Our Lady of Guadelupe while an opera singer belted out Ave Maria in front of a mostly evangelical crowd. The image would later be presented to Melania Trump. It's a very weird ecumenism.

Then there's the Pope who has spoken twice now about the attack on the Capitol and there's something extraordinary about the Roman Pontiff warning against Know-Nothings subverting American democracy. But here we are.

And the Pope has said more about the attack than US bishops because they're profoundly split between pro and anti-Trump.

[The Brain]

My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.

That is not what I claimed.  Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves.  My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.

If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.

[Malthus]

Trumpism revealed pretty starkly, to me at least, that when politicians claim to be religious, they usually mean it only in the most superficial of ways - as a sort of "team" identification. What is good for the "team" is good, ethics and morality be damned.

The proof: Trump single handedly represented the seven deadly sins in his own person - yet people who claimed to be "religious" supported him.

I would have no problems with some politician claiming that they derived their morality from their religion, assuming that was actually true - at least then, you would be able to predict what they would do in office concerning a given issue, and vote accordingly.

The problem lies more with those who are "religious" in the above-noted sense. They seem to be willing to jettison all notions of morality, including those preached by their own religion, to support the person who represents their "side". No matter that he or she is a selfish scumbag who breaks every moral commandment, and will do so in office.

Unfortunately, people who are genuinely guided by notions of religious morality appear to be in the minority. The extract from H. above is a case in point: everything can be summed up as 'do whatever it takes so my team wins', dressed up in fancier language about 'the lordship of Christ imposed on the nations' or whatever.

I think it naïve to think that evangelicals are not guided by their religious beliefs.


From the NYTimes article.

Christian nationalists' acceptance of President Trump's spectacular turpitude these past four years was a good measure of just how dire they think our situation is. Even a corrupt sociopath was better, in their eyes, than the horrifying freedom that religious moderates and liberals, along with the many Americans who don't happen to be religious, offer the world.

The point is that if  they are willing to support a corrupt sociopath, the content of those religious beliefs must be pretty simple - 'my group must win at all costs'.

This isn't unique to religion of course, but is practically characteristic of a "true belief" in anything: that winning is the most important thing, trumping the content of whatever that belief stood for in the first place.

[Sheilbh]

If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.

It'll be quite interesting to see how it's handled with Priti Patel (who I think has chance of being next PM which is a little underpriced) given that she has ties with the BJP and Modi. Hopefully the press will be able to handle her faith v her politics with some sense and not just slip into easy, kind of racist, anti-Hindu bigotry. Given the Guardian have already had to pull cartoons of her as a cow, I'm not hopeful.

[crazy canuck]

My impression isn't that a politician's personal beliefs are considered a purely private matter in US politics.

That is not what I claimed.  Certainly US politicians wear their Christianity on their sleeves.  My claim is those beliefs are not often scrutinized.

If you limit it to Christian politicians then I agree.

Fair point