Evangelical Christianity and politics - the elephant in the room

[The Minsky Moment]

I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.

I have read before that Pelagius is apparently a go to heretic for American evangelicals to sum up their fears of the modern world.

I think it is part of the weird cosplay nature of this - which I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of storming the Capitol or attitudes on the right about Christianity.

They are missing a a golden opportunity to unite America and the West against the Nestorian menace. I've heard rumors some of these heretics have been hiding out in *gasp* China.

No peace in our time with the false prophet Prestor John!

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the theological side is interesting if you're interested in that sort of thing, but I think it's the wrong take to believe it explains the political side.

In the United States, on this topic, it is actually politics wagging the religious tail, not vice versa. I actually think a lot of people would disagree with that at first glance, but from my personal experiences and as much reading as I've been able to do on the topic I feel fairly comfortable in saying this is true. I actually don't think you really have to, for example, distinguish that much between Hawley's intellectual religious foundations and those of conservative forces in the American Catholic Church like the aforementioned Archbishop Vagano. If you want to do a theological study, there are differences. But politically...these are basically the same people.

I believe this so much that I frequently use the term "evangelical Catholicism", which I don't think is widely accepted yet but in the American political context probably will be more so over time. I basically use this term to describe the conservative American Catholics who behave, and have virtually identical political priorities, to Protestant evangelicals. I think there's a big division in our Church here between basically three groups: evangelical Catholicism (who I suspect may be the largest group, I have no proof), "mainstream" Catholics (myself and Joe Biden being good examples), and then you have the "third world" Catholics, or to steal Sheilbh's more politically correct term "Global South", these are the Catholic congregations in America who are primarily non-English language immigrant communities, and they actually area  substantial number of total Catholics in America but don't get spoken about politically that much. The Global South Catholics tend to be more conservative than mainstream Catholics, but are less aligned with the Republican party's project of nationalism (which is unsurprising), and thus are more split voters if they're naturalized (many of them aren't.)

But again, the religious side of it arguably to me isn't even the most important. It's cultural and political. The American right has a project of "American Nationalism", I view movements like the one referenced in the Hawley article, the obvious similar movement among conservative Catholics, and secular movements like that espoused by the likes of Rich Lowry of the National Review (who literally penned a book defending nationalism recently), as all being closely aligned. There are people fleshing out the "Intellectual" part of this movement, but of course the vast majority of the participants in this movement are non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, and are part of the movement for similar despicable reasons people are attracted to nationalism anywhere. American Nationalism is mostly defined by being white, but I won't go as far as to say it's as simple as that. It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

The key reason this gets so dangerous is how they define who is a real American or not almost perfectly overlaps with "who votes for Republicans" and people who don't, who represent a majority of the country, are not real Americans. That means it is illegitimate for them to participate in the political process. Places like Philadelphia and Detroit are illegitimate even moreso because of how they vote than anything else. How they vote defines them in the minds of the nationalists as not real Americans, because not voting for the Republican party means they must reject Christianity, English language, and a required phony patriotism expressed by things like standing for the national anthem and worshipping the police and military no matter their behavior. The fact that these people are also racial minorities is "icing on the cake" to explain how they aren't real Americans.

I think the left does misjudge this movement a little bit. It's easy to just dismiss it as "simple racism", and while I think this movement was certainly fueled by racism, and is full up on real racists, there's bigger issues of "folk nationalism" that I think indeed go under investigated for simpler explanations about racial grievance. Properly understood I think you start to see a lot of similarities between this movement and movements like Fidesz, Law and Justice in Poland at etc. These movements are nationalist first--and their primary MO is defining who is a real member of the nation and who isn't, and promoting the idea that those who are not, do not deserve to participate in the democratic process nor do they deserve the same regard and rights as those who are part of the nation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also one of the reasons I'm so convinced it is the political/cultural driving it, in my own experience I've "lost" a lot of Catholic friends to what I call evangelical Christianity. At almost every point in their "journey" to the dark side, in discussions with them, when their nationalist political beliefs clashed with core Catholic theology, what do you think they found invalid? The theology. They always found ways to basically reinvent theological reality to paint it as if the Church's teachings are in line with them, and any deviations are just "bad Catholics" promulgating bad ideas, but "real" Catholicism is perfectly in sync with their nationalism in their minds. So quite literally their religious belief is the belief that ends up being mutable, it is their nationalist belief that is immutable.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting post - and there's a lot I agree with.

I think in the American context there's definitely a lot of it that is American nationalism - especially, perhaps, for evangelicals because Protestants, especially American Protestants, tend to have a sort of providential sense of their nation. I wonder if the Catholic attitude is more almost about nationalism from the perspective of "Western civilisation". I've read plenty of defences of Orban in the right-wing American Catholic media, Bannon wanted his school of national populism, I've read so many pieces over the years about the cultural suicide of Europe. So I think part of it which is perhaps more pronounced among right-wing Catholics rather than evangelicals is that American nationalism is almost the route to Western nationalism: America as the last, best hope of "the West".

And I think that's why, culturally speaking, so many of them in the Catholic wing are attracted to the rad trad style of worship. It is an expression of a moment in Western culture v modern, multicultural, inclusive Europe/America. It's why Twitter accounts of classical architecture swarm with Nazis in the comments because the contrast that is so often being drawn is with the modernist (Jewish and/or gay), the cosmopolitan (as above), the multicultural (Muslim). I'm no expert but looking at it I always feel like there's something of the Spanish far-right in all of this as well as Law and Order/Fidesz.

Again I think Palin is really interesting as the case study of this kicking off because she was explicit in saying that she was backed by "real Americans".

[garbon]

It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.

[Duque de Bragança]

I can think of nothing that could heal America more than a good old fashioned Augustinian-Pelagian controversy.
Let's call the Tunsians and see if Carthage is still available to hold a council.

I have read before that Pelagius is apparently a go to heretic for American evangelicals to sum up their fears of the modern world.

I think it is part of the weird cosplay nature of this - which I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of storming the Capitol or attitudes on the right about Christianity.

They are missing a a golden opportunity to unite America and the West against the Nestorian menace. I've heard rumors some of these heretics have been hiding out in *gasp* China.

No peace in our time with the false prophet Prestor John!

Nowadays, scholars do not believe Nestorius was Nestorian, as the word took another convenient meanings. Pelagianism was also greatly defined by the heresiologists, so the parallel makes sense.
Quite a potential for politically-motivated manipulations. 

[Jacob]

Excellent analysis, OvB. It certainly has the ring of truth to it in my ears.

[Eddie Teach]

It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.

Only if you think cultural behaviors and race are intrinsically entwined.

[crazy canuck]

I think the theological side is interesting if you're interested in that sort of thing, but I think it's the wrong take to believe it explains the political side.

In the United States, on this topic, it is actually politics wagging the religious tail, not vice versa. I actually think a lot of people would disagree with that at first glance, but from my personal experiences and as much reading as I've been able to do on the topic I feel fairly comfortable in saying this is true. I actually don't think you really have to, for example, distinguish that much between Hawley's intellectual religious foundations and those of conservative forces in the American Catholic Church like the aforementioned Archbishop Vagano. If you want to do a theological study, there are differences. But politically...these are basically the same people.

I believe this so much that I frequently use the term "evangelical Catholicism", which I don't think is widely accepted yet but in the American political context probably will be more so over time. I basically use this term to describe the conservative American Catholics who behave, and have virtually identical political priorities, to Protestant evangelicals. I think there's a big division in our Church here between basically three groups: evangelical Catholicism (who I suspect may be the largest group, I have no proof), "mainstream" Catholics (myself and Joe Biden being good examples), and then you have the "third world" Catholics, or to steal Sheilbh's more politically correct term "Global South", these are the Catholic congregations in America who are primarily non-English language immigrant communities, and they actually area  substantial number of total Catholics in America but don't get spoken about politically that much. The Global South Catholics tend to be more conservative than mainstream Catholics, but are less aligned with the Republican party's project of nationalism (which is unsurprising), and thus are more split voters if they're naturalized (many of them aren't.)

But again, the religious side of it arguably to me isn't even the most important. It's cultural and political. The American right has a project of "American Nationalism", I view movements like the one referenced in the Hawley article, the obvious similar movement among conservative Catholics, and secular movements like that espoused by the likes of Rich Lowry of the National Review (who literally penned a book defending nationalism recently), as all being closely aligned. There are people fleshing out the "Intellectual" part of this movement, but of course the vast majority of the participants in this movement are non-intellectual or anti-intellectual, and are part of the movement for similar despicable reasons people are attracted to nationalism anywhere. American Nationalism is mostly defined by being white, but I won't go as far as to say it's as simple as that. It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

The key reason this gets so dangerous is how they define who is a real American or not almost perfectly overlaps with "who votes for Republicans" and people who don't, who represent a majority of the country, are not real Americans. That means it is illegitimate for them to participate in the political process. Places like Philadelphia and Detroit are illegitimate even moreso because of how they vote than anything else. How they vote defines them in the minds of the nationalists as not real Americans, because not voting for the Republican party means they must reject Christianity, English language, and a required phony patriotism expressed by things like standing for the national anthem and worshipping the police and military no matter their behavior. The fact that these people are also racial minorities is "icing on the cake" to explain how they aren't real Americans.

I think the left does misjudge this movement a little bit. It's easy to just dismiss it as "simple racism", and while I think this movement was certainly fueled by racism, and is full up on real racists, there's bigger issues of "folk nationalism" that I think indeed go under investigated for simpler explanations about racial grievance. Properly understood I think you start to see a lot of similarities between this movement and movements like Fidesz, Law and Justice in Poland at etc. These movements are nationalist first--and their primary MO is defining who is a real member of the nation and who isn't, and promoting the idea that those who are not, do not deserve to participate in the democratic process nor do they deserve the same regard and rights as those who are part of the nation.

I agree with that analysis and I think that is what makes Hawley's evangelical ideology dangerous.  It is a short distance from defining true Americans as people who hold views consistent with the tenants of a faith which are defined in this particular way, with a totalitarian state which justifies mistreatment of the other on that basis. 

[grumbler]

It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.

Only if you think cultural behaviors and race are intrinsically entwined.

Or only if you think that there is something called "race" that isn't just a manifestation of culture.

There isn't a "white culture," there is just a culture that some people claim is "white culture" because they define themselves as "white" and define their culture as "white culture."  Ditto for any of the many cultures that anyone might claim is "black culture."  Culture is a manifestation of background and upbringing, not skin color.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting post - and there's a lot I agree with.

I think in the American context there's definitely a lot of it that is American nationalism - especially, perhaps, for evangelicals because Protestants, especially American Protestants, tend to have a sort of providential sense of their nation. I wonder if the Catholic attitude is more almost about nationalism from the perspective of "Western civilisation". I've read plenty of defences of Orban in the right-wing American Catholic media, Bannon wanted his school of national populism, I've read so many pieces over the years about the cultural suicide of Europe. So I think part of it which is perhaps more pronounced among right-wing Catholics rather than evangelicals is that American nationalism is almost the route to Western nationalism: America as the last, best hope of "the West".

My cousin whom I was as close with as a brother before his slide into extremism I think falls into this "Western Civilization" defender sort of Catholic. He goes to retreats regularly with other far right Catholics and is part of organizations that in prior eras I think the Church would have come down on hard for intransigence, I won't be surprised at all if people like him eventually end up in some sort of breakaway "true believer Catholic Church" separate from the actual church. In fact I think the schism between this sort of American Catholic and the actual church will be one of the most profound changes in Catholicism in the last 200-300 years, much more than the grumblings of sedevacantists after VaticanII primarily because it will likely result in a much greater number of worshippers leaving the Church and in more formal ways, establishing a true alternative Church of significant scale.

But anyway if you talk to my cousin, despite having not set foot in Europe in a good 15 years, he spends a large portion of his time ranting about the collapse of the West and the invasion of Muslim hordes into Europe. He strongly believes America is the "last bastion" and that it is under the same sort of attack as we speak, and it would not surprise me at all to find he some day runs afoul of the law due to some militant stupidity (his transgression would probably be posting some outright death threat directed towards a public official in a Facebook screed, rather than trying to break down the doors of the Capitol.)

[Sheilbh]

One thought - I wonder if we'll see a return of old school anti-Catholic conspiracism among evangelicals?

The President's a Catholic, the Speaker's a Catholic, the Chief Justice and most of the Supreme Court are Catholics - the Pope's a Jesuit.

I can definitely see scope for things not going how the Trumpy/Q-ish/conspiratorial wing of evangelicalism want it to go and they start joining the dots about a globalist Catholic conspiracy

[crazy canuck]

Best not try to connect non existent dots for them 

[Josquius]

It would be nice, it would get them turning on each other at least.

[viper37]

It's defined by being what these people view as Real Americans. Lowry who is mostly secular, goes so far as to say Christianity is an important defining feature--not that you have to be a true believer, but that you be what he calls a "cultural Christian." It's also important that you speak English. While a lot of these people are racists, they are willing to more or less embrace non-whites who have sufficiently adhered to other parts of the program. So guys like Ben Carson, Herman Cain (rip), Tim Scott et al. are more than accepted by this movement. The color of their skin is not white, but they have become what I honestly think the American Nationalists would view as "culturally white." As long as they are not trying to actively present and represent a non-"American" culture, they are fully accepted in the movement.

Isn't that still plainly racism though? One is acceptable as long as one acts as 'white' as one can possibly be.

hmm... racism is all about "race", usually defined by the colour of the skin, or by a specific ethnicity (Arabs) or religion (Jews).  They usually hate "n..." who act like whites, as much as they hate the "n..." who has rastas, smokes pot and listen to (c)rap music.

Intolerance, for sure, intolerance of one's opinions, culture, religious (or non) values.  But racism might be a bit of a stretch.

What is the word we would use if one believes his culture is the superior one and there's no merits to others?  It's akin to a form of imperialism, but it's not the same as 19th/early 20th century imperialism&colonialism.