Trump launched his 2020 campaign tonight. Not much has changed since 2016.

Trump Tulsa

Earlier this evening, Donald Trump started his campaign with a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The number of coronavirus cases in Oklahoma is rising. Most of those who did attend the rally were not wearing masks. With the exception of U.S. Senator James Lankford, none of the politicians Trump asked to stand and be recognized–Senators James Inhofe and Tom Cotton, Representatives Jim Jordan, Debbie Lesko, and Elise Stefanik, and Governor Kevin Stitt–were wearing masks. Six of Trump’s rally staff tested positive for coronavirus this week.

The millions of attendees that Trump promised this week did not show up. It looked like he had a decent crowd in Tulsa’s Bank of Oklahoma Center (BOK), but it was much, much smaller than what the Trump team estimated. As I watched on television (C-SPAN), I saw a lot of empty seats. Trump and Mike Pence had to cancel an outdoor speaking event today because no one came.

Trump chose to say nothing about the country’s race problems. He did not bring-up George Floyd, Juneteenth, the country”s racial unrest, or the 1921 Tulsa Massacre. His silence spoke volumes.

I live-tweeted and retweeted the rally

This is what we mean by Christian nationalism. Pence uses this verse all the time and applies it to the United States. I wrote about the way the Christian Right uses 2 Chronicles 7:14 here and here. Russell Moore has a nice piece on this here.

Much of the material in the link above comes from my discussion of “law and order” and Nixon in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.

For those who can’t access the link in the above tweet, you can find it here. During the speech, Trump continued to extol his two Supreme Court justices, although he did not mention either of them by name. Readers will recall that we also looked at the Bostock case this week from the perspective of religious liberty and historical thinking.

I would love to know what was going through the mind of James Lankford during this rally. He does not seem like the kind of guy who likes these kinds of events. As we noted earlier this week, Lankford was behind Trump’s decision to move the Tulsa rally from June 19, 2020 (Juneteenth) to June 20, 2020.

Here is what Americans think about how Trump handled, and is handling, the coronavirus. His lies, mistruths, and partially true statements (at least before April 9, 2020) about the pandemic have been compiled here. The Associated Press reported that Trump “wasted” months before preparing the country for the virus. One could make a good case that Trump’s “America First” policy was to blame.

It is hard to pick the most disgusting thing Trump said tonight, but the above statement would be near the top. It reveals the inner-workings of Trump’s mind. Only a narcissist, who interprets everything through the lens of how it benefits his ambitions, would say publicly that there is a political downside to coronavirus testing.

The last five tweets cover the darkest moments of Trump’s speech

As noted above, Trump said nothing about race in America or Tulsa. Yet he spent a considerable portion of the speech talking about this:

John Gehring nails it. Court evangelicals, cover your ears:

Great observation from Kedron Bardwell:

Let’s remember that in 2016, Trump announced a list of  Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society judges. Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were on that list. Trump’s promise of a new list, of course, is a direct appeal to the white evangelical base. Trump knows that evangelicals vote for a president based predominantly on his or her promises of conservative Supreme Court appointments. Gorsuch’s majority opinion in the Bostock case will not change anything here. Trump is hoping this strategy will pay off again in November.

Matt Lewis may be correct, but I am pretty sure Trump will give it his best shot.

If you can’t read the link in the above tweet click here.

Here Trump seems to be making a statement about the self-interested nature of humanity and his constituency’s inability to rise above such selfishness. He is essentially saying something like: “I dare you to place your morality and what is right over a strong economy.  You don’t have the guts.” It all reminds me of his “I can stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters” line.

For more on John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park, click here.

And the campaign has begun!

How the history of white evangelical racism has led to Donald Trump’s election and continues to shape support for his presidency

Believe Me 3dI begin with a caveat. This post is not implying that all white evangelicals are or have been racist. Many white evangelicals have been anti-racist and have fought hard to curb systemic racism in American life. But, as I argued in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, these are not historical forces that led many white evangelicals to vote for Donald Trump in 2016. They are not the historical forces that have led many white evangelicals to continue to support Donald Trump. They are not the historical forces that will lead many white evangelicals to vote for Donald Trump in 2020.  And they are not the historical forces that have led many white evangelicals to reject systemic racism in the wake of George Floyd’s killing.

But here is some history:

1 .After Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, which resulted in sixty white deaths in Southampton County, Virginia, fearful white evangelical Christians in the South began to fight harder for the expansion of slavery to the west in the belief that its spread to more open country might reduce the proximity of slaves to one another and thus make insurrections more difficult. White churches responded to Turner’s rebellion with missionary efforts in the hope that the chances of passion-filled revolts might be reduced if slaves could be monitored more closely by white clergy and lay church leaders. Yes, the idea of African Americans rebelling and causing disorder has been around for a long time.

2. The anxieties stemming from slave insurrections led Southern ministers to develop a biblical and theological defense of slavery. These ministers argued that anyone who read the Bible in a literal, word-for-word fashion (as God intended it to be read) would conclude that God had ordained this system of labor. Commonsense interpretations of Bible passages that referred to slavery were often difficult to refute. Old Testament patriarchs such as Abraham owned slaves. Slavery was a legal institution in the New Testament world, and the apostle Paul urged the Roman Christians to obey government laws. In the book of Philemon, Paul required the runaway slave Onesimus to return to his owner. Writing in the immediate wake of the Nat Turner rebellion, Thomas Dew, a professor of political science at the College of William and Mary, used the Bible to defend the view that all societies had a fixed and natural social structure. Citing 1 Corinthians 7:20-21, Dew reasoned that Africans should remain slaves because God had created them to fulfill such a role in society. Slaves had been given a divine “calling” and, in Paul’s words, “each one should remain in the condition in which he was called.” One South Carolina Presbyterians went so far as to say, “If the Scriptures do not justify slavery…I know not what they do justify.” I am reminded here of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler’s remarks about slavery.

3. Evangelicals thought that the South’s social order, and its identity as a Christian culture worthy of God’s blessing, was grounded in a proper reading of the Bible. In other words, the people of the South–and eventually the Confederate States of America–believed that they were living in a Christian society precisely because they upheld the institution of slavery.  The abolitionist argument against slavery was not only heretical because it violated the explicit teaching of Scripture; it also threatened the Christian character of the United States. Robert L. Dabney, a Virginia Presbyterian clergyman and one of the strongest defenders of slavery and white supremacy in the South, contended that the notion that slaves–or any Africans for that matter–had “rights” and thus deserved freedom was a modern idea introduced in the eighteenth-century by the progressive thinkers of the Enlightenment, not by the expositors of God-inspired Scripture.  James Henley Thornwell, another powerful theological voice in support of slavery, understood the Civil War as a clash between atheist abolitionists and virtuous slaveholders: “The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders–they are atheists, socialists, communist, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. Sound familiar? Watch this or most other episodes of the Eric Metaxas Show. One of Thornwell’s students, New Orleans Presbyterian minister Benjamin Palmer, said that the South had been called “to conserve and to perpetuate the institution of slavery as not existing.” It was a duty to “ourselves, to our slaves, to the world, and to almighty God.”

4. Southern evangelicals also feared the mixing of races (even though the races were mixed mainly because of the long history of master raping slaves). Slaveholders believed that their defense of a Christian civilization was directly connected to the purity of the white race. One Presbyterian minister in Kentucky claimed that “no Christian American” would allow the “God-defying depravity of intermarriage between the white and negro races.”  South Carolina governor George McDuffie, who  said that “no human institution…is more manifestly consistent with the will of God, then domestic slavery,” also claimed abolitionists were on a “fiend-like errand of mingling the blood of master and slave.” In the process, McDuffie argued, they were contributing to the “end of the white republic established in 1776.”

5. Longstanding racial fears did not fade away with the Union victory in the Civil War. Reconstruction amendments that ended slavery (Thirteenth) and provided freedmen with citizenship rights (Fourteenth) and voting rights (Fifteenth) only reinforced Southern evangelical racism. A classic example of this was Dabney’s opposition to the ordination of freedmen in the Southern Presbyterian Church. During an 1867 debate over this issue, Dabney said that the ordination of African American minister in the white Presbyterian church would “threaten the very existence of civil society.” It was God, Dabney argued, who created racial difference and, as a result, “it was plainly impossible for a black man to teach and rule white Christians to edification.” He predicted a theological version of “white flight” by suggesting that black ordination would “bring a mischievous element in our church, at the expense of driving a multitude of valuable members and ministers out.” Dabney would not sit by and watch his denomination permit “amalgamation” to “mix the race of Washington and Lee, and Jackson, with this base herd which they brought from the pens of Africa.”

6. Northern Protestant fundamentalists at the turn of the 20th century were aware of the moral problem of racism, but they did very little to bring it to an end. While they did occasionally speak out against lynching and other acts of racial violence, they failed to see how their literal views of the Bible contributed to systemic racism in American life. White terror groups seemed to understand this better than the fundamentalists did. As historian Matt Sutton has shown, the Ku Klux Klan regularly sought partnerships with fundamentalists. The Klan’s leaders believed Protestant fundamentalist crusades to save Christian America made them a natural ally in the war against African Americans, Catholics, Jews, and immigrants. Some fundamentalist commentaries on race could have been lifted from the collected works of 19th-century pro-slavery theologians such as Lewis Dabney or James Henry Thornwell. A.C. Dixon, the fundamentalist pastor of the Hanson Place Baptist Church in Brooklyn, called the Fifteenth Amendment (the amendment that gave African Americans the right to vote) “the blunder of the age” because African Americans were “ignorant” and thus ill-equipped to cast a ballot. Other fundamentalists upheld typical racial stereotypes that portrayed African Americans as rapists, murderers, and threats to white women. In 1923, Moody Monthly, the flagship publication of fundamentalism, published articles defending Klan activity. Fundamentalist fears about the decline of Christian America regularly manifested themselves in racism.

7. In the wake of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, an event which historians have called “the single worst incident of racial violence in American history,” several evangelical and fundamentalist clergymen were quick to put their white supremacy on display. Edwin D. Mouzon, the bishop of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, said he did not know who was to blame for the massacre. But if you read the front page of the June 6, 1921 edition of the Morning Tulsa Daily World, “black agitators,” including black activist and historian W.E.B. Du Bois, were to blame.
Mon, Jun 6, 1921 – Page 1 · The Morning Tulsa Daily World (Tulsa, Oklahoma) · Newspapers.com

Mouzon said, “there is one thing…upon which I should like to make myself perfectly clear. That is racial equality. There never has been and there never will be such a thing. It is divine ordained. This is something that negroes should be told very plainly…At the same time, we must have a Christian attitude toward the black man; he is made by the same creator; he is subject to the same Christian laws, he is our brother in Christ.” On the same day, Reverend J.W. Abel of Tulsa’s First Methodist Church said, “What other nation in all human history has done as much [for] a people as the white race has done for the race which but a brief century ago emerged from slavery? A race which even in slavery was a thousand times better off than the black princes who ruled their race in Africa.” Abel continued, “But the sin of this [black] race is that they are all too ready to protect a member of the race in crime, for no other reason that he is a negro…some day the negro will come to know that the white race is his best friend.” Dr. Howard G. Cooke, pastor of Tulsa’s Centennial Methodist Church, noted that “there has been a great deal of loose-mouthed and loose-minded talking about the white people of Tulsa being equally to blame with the blacks. This is not true.” He added, “[The massacre] should be the beginning of a new regime of law and order in this city.” This is is an interesting observation in light of the fact that a self-proclaimed “law and order” president will be holding a rally in Tulsa tomorrow night, only a few weeks after the 99th anniversary of the massacre.  (Thanks to historian Kenny Brown for bringing this material to my attention)

8. In the mid-20th century,  white evangelicals had a mixed track record regarding racial issues facing the country during the civil rights movement. Billy Graham was famous for desegregating his evangelistic crusades, and many evangelical leaders and publications supported the Brown v. Board of Education decision ending segregation in public schools, just as they supported the Civil Rights Acts (1964) and the Voting Rights Act (1965). But very few Northern evangelicals actually participated in the movement, and strong pockets of segregationist thought and practice continued to exist in the evangelical South. Most white evangelicals were not particularly interested in the civil rights movement; they were far more concerned about–and opposed to–the way the federal government used its power to enforce desegregation and oppose Jim Crow laws in their local communities. Historian Mark Noll has argued that race and civil rights served as an entry point for the white conservative evangelicals critique of active government.

9. This relationship between race and evangelical opposition to “big government” intervention into state and local affairs is best illustrated in the evangelical response to two Supreme Court cases. Green v. Connally (1972) removed tax-exempt status from private schools and colleges that discriminated against students based on race. At the center of the controversy was Bob Jones University, a school that banned interracial dating and denied admission to unmarried African Americans. In 1975, the IRS moved to revoke the tax-exempt status of the university, a case that was eventually decided in favor of the IRS in Bob Jones v. United States.  Green v. Connolly and Bob Jones v. United States also had implications for the hundreds of private Christian academies cropping up (at the rate of two per day) all over the United States. Many of these schools were in the South and had discriminatory admissions policies, which is not surprising given that many such schools were founded in the immediate aftermath of public-school integration. When President Jimmy Carter, a self-proclaimed “born-again Christian,” supported the Green v. Connally decision, he alienated many conservative evangelicals who ran these academies. To be fair, many segregationist academies were already beginning to admit African American students in the early 1970s, but the leaders of these schools, true to their Southern heritage, wanted to deal with the issues of segregation, race, and civil rights on their own terms. They certainly did not want the federal government forcing them to desegregate.

10. Thus, when Jerry Falwell and like minded conservative evangelicals created the Moral Majority in the late 1970s, they already had experienced the power of the central government when the Supreme Court intruded on the affairs of their segregated academies. In fact, historian Randall Balmer contends that it was this fear of big-government interference as it related to desegregation of institutions like Bob Jones University and Falwell’s own Liberty Academy that prompted the formation of the Christian Right. Paul Weyrich, one of Falwell’s closest associates and one of the leading organizers of the movement, told Balmer in a 1990 interchange that the Christian Right was originally founded, not on evangelicals’ opposition to abortion, but rather on opposition to the attempts by the IRS to desegregate Christian academies.

11. Many of Trump’s evangelical supports came to Trump’s rescue when, in August 2017, he drew a moral equivalency between white supremacy in Charlottesville, Virginia and those who came to the city to try to oppose them. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church–Dallas, went on Fox Business Network and said that Trump “did just fine” in his statement(s) about the event. He performed a rhetorical move that court evangelicals and other Trump supporters have perfected: he changed the subject and went from defense to offense. Jeffress warned Fox viewers that an “axis of evil” (Democrats, the media, and the “GOP establishment) were plotting to take Trump down. He then reaffirmed America’s Judeo-Christian roots without any sense that many of the Judeo-Christian influences that have shaped United States history were intricately bound up with the kind of racism that the nation had witnessed in Charlottesville. Watch:

It is time that white evangelicals take a hard look at its past and stop trying to “Make America Great Again.” It is time, as theologian Jurgen Moltmann once said, to “waken the dead and piece together what has been broken.” The operate word is reconciliation, not “renew,” “restore” or “reclaim.”

The enemy is out to get us. Please send money.

Believe Me 3dYesterday, I wrote a post about Rob Schenk’s revealing interview with CNN. I titled that post: “A former member of the Christian Right says that a political fundraiser once told him that we ‘need more fear and more anger’ from white evangelicals.”

When I read Schenk’s post, I remembered a passage from Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump:

[Cal] Thomas, who parlayed his Moral Majority fame into a nationally syndicated newspaper column, did not mince words when he disparaged the evangelical pursuit of political power. “Christian faith is about truth,” he tells his readers and “whenever you try to mix power and truth, power usually wins.”  Through his years with Falwell, Thomas learned how power is the “ultimate aphrodisiac.” It is not only seductive, but also affects the judgment of the one who “takes it.” Thomas warned his evangelical readers how the chase for political power threatens the spread of the gospel. He quoted the late Catholic priest Henri Nouwen: “The temptation to consider power an apt instrument for the proclamation of the gospel is the greatest temptation of all.” Thomas pointed to the myriad ways in which the Moral Majority–and the Christian Right agenda that it spawned–played to the fears of white evangelicals. For example, Moral Majority fundraising letters always followed a basic formula: “First, they identify an enemy: homosexuals, abortionists, Democrats, or ‘liberals’ in general. Second, the enemies are accused of being out to ‘get us’ or to impose their morality on the rest of the country. Third, the letter assures the reader that something will be done…Fourth, to get the job done, please send money.”

Friday night court evangelical roundup

Metaxas

What have Trump’s evangelicals been saying since yesterday’s update?

Eric Metaxas is still attacking systemic racism. Today one his guests said, “systemic racism does not exist. It is a conspiracy theory that the radical Left has been using to try to destroy the whole American system of justice, of equity, of individual rights, and of the Christian mission of the human being as morally responsible for his own actions and for no one else’s.” (For what people mean when they say “systemic racism,” I point you to Chris Cuomo’s show last night).

Metaxas says that people are now talking so about systemic racism right now because Donald Trump “has been such a monkey-wrench in the deep state.” (No reference here to the idea that people may be talking about systemic racism because of the death of George Floyd and the peaceful protest in every U.S. city”). His guest also compares what is happening right now in America to the Salem Witch Trials. Metaxas compares the woke mob to “Hitler and the Nazis” and also suggests that Black Lives Matter and anyone else who is sympathetic to the movement is the Antichrist. Metaxas knows where his ratings bread is buttered.

OK.

In other court evangelical news:

Robert Jeffress believes that churches should lead the way in solving the problem of racism. He writes, “Every major social and political movement in American–from abolition to the Civil Rights Movement–has been led by pastors and churches. Too many attempts have been made in recent years to scrub our public square clean of religious language and devotion.”

Leave it to Jeffress to somehow connect the church’s role in social justice to the victimization of white evangelical churches.

I wish Jeffress was correct. I wish white churches would step-up and work to end racism in America. But first let’s stop and think more deeply about the history of American reform movements. Yes, Christians were active in the abolition movement and civil rights movement. This activity has been well documented. But let’s also remember that abolitionism was necessary because white churches in the South–including Jeffress’s own Southern Baptist Convention–endorsed slavery. In fact, the Southern Baptist Church was born out of its defense of slavery.

And how about the civil rights movement? Let’s remember that Martin Luther King Jr. and the other leaders of the Black church had to fight for civil rights because white churches and pastors did nothing to end it. King wrote his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” to the white clergymen in Birmingham who did not not want him in town because he was an “outside agitator.” And let’s not forget that Jeffress’s own First Baptist Church in Dallas was a bastion of segregationist theology. So before Jeffress starts pontificating about churches leading the way, he should look at the history of his own people.

Jeffress says that “reform is always local.” I wish this were true when it comes to the history race relations in America. The racist localism of white cities, and the fear of “outside agitators” like King, meant that change had to come from the outside, including the federal government. History teaches that when we leave white evangelical churches, especially those in the South, to solve the problem of racism, very little happens. I pray that things might be different this time around.

Below is a video of Jeffress’s appearance tonight on Fox News Business with Lou Dobbs. I was waiting for Jeffress to bring up Romans 13 to defend the police. It happened tonight, just after Jeffress asserted that Trump does not have a racist bone in his body. And he concludes by saying that if Biden wins in 2020 he will bring out the guillotines and kill everyone who has a thought that the Left does not like. What is it lately with all of these references to the French Revolution? Jeffress sounds like the Federalists in New England who feared that if Thomas Jefferson were elected president in 1800 the Democratic-Republicans–fueled by the spirit of the French Revolution– would start closing churches and confiscating Bibles. And there are still smart people out there who reject my fear thesis.

Meanwhile:

Ralph Reed is trying to convince people that he has compassion for Stacey Abrams

Franklin Graham wants you to vote for law and order:

Until next time.

Let’s Check-In on the Court Evangelicals

COurt Evangelicals

Here is what your favorite pro-Trump evangelical leaders–the court evangelicals— are saying about everything going in our country right now:

Robert Jeffress is using scripture to subtely suggest that Christians should obey their government. Once again, he is using the Bible and the flag in the same tweet:

Samuel Rodriguez said he was glad to see Trump brandishing the Bible “like a Boss.” He added, “I see Donald Trump going, ‘You all dare to burn a church behind the White House. How dare you? Let me show you something.”

Rodriguez also tweeted this:

I’m still trying to figure out how to reconcile the statement with the tweet.

Ralph Reed seems to be getting more and more desperate. He is trying to maintain composure on a sinking ship. Here he is tweeting a completely debunked piece at The Federalist:

Jerry Falwell Jr. and Charlie Kirk’s Falkirk Center at Liberty University weighs in:

The Falkirk Center seems unsure how to respond to all of this so it turned to Arnold Schwarzenegger. When will Jerry Falwell Jr. and Charlie Kirk learn that the future of American unity is happening in the streets of American cities right now? Don’t be deceived. The Falkirk Center believes in “national unity” on its own terms, and these are not the terms of the people who are in the streets right now. “Dispense of vitriol?” Just read the Center’s tweeter feed. Just read Kirk’s feed.

Speaking of Kirk:

FYI: Brees apologized today. Kirk has not.

Here’s more from Kirk:

And here is Eric Metaxas rejecting the idea of both white privilege and systemic racism. He says these ideas were manufactured by “cultural Marxists.” He says these things are “bizarre.” Let’s remember that Metaxas fashions himself as a historian. Maybe he should read some African-American history. Tune in at about the 16-minute mark:

Metaxas doesn’t even hide his partisanship anymore. Lately his show starts with attacks on Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as part of a commercial for “My Pillow.”

And then in the second hour of his program on Wednesday he talked with Charlie Kirk:

At around the 28-minute mark, Metaxas addresses the Trump Bible photo-op. I will just let you watch it. Kirk says that anyone who criticized Trump’s use of the Bible at St. John’s Church is trying  to destroy Western Civilization.

At the 39-minute mark, Kirk calls white privilege a “racist and sinister lie.” He even makes the case that when Trump held-up the Bible he was somehow making a statement against white privilege and systemic racism. Metaxas responds with some pretty bad theology.  Just watch. There is only so much of this stuff I can take.

Jack Graham has finally weighed-in:

Yes, Trump did show solidarity with “people of faith”–the conservative evangelical Christians who support him. Did Trump really declare his faith in front of St. John’s church on Monday? Here is how he understands Christian faith. (From an interview last night with Sean Spicer):

David Dark had a nice response to this:

And there is today’s update on the current state of Trump-loving white evangelical Christianity. Learn more here:

Eric Metaxas Talks With Al Mohler About “The Gathering Storm”

Al Mohler has a new book out. It’s called The Gathering Storm: Secularism, Culture, and the Church.

Watch:

A few lines in this video stood out to me:

  • Mohler says that during World War II, Great Britain waited too long to be awakened to the challenge of Nazi Germany. Christianity now faces similar challenges and Mohler wants to make sure its adherents don’t wait too long to respond. Like Mohler, I do believe that the church needs to be awakened to a challenge. As I wrote in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, the challenge is to overcome fear with hope, exchange the pursuit of political power for a politics of humility, and replace nostalgia with some serious historical thinking about the sins of our nation. Indeed, if evangelical Christians are not up to this challenge we, to quote Mohler here, “pay a deep price.”
  • Mohler wants to equip Christians to face “tectonic changes” in “the foundational level of morality” and “the definition of truth.” As we listen to him, let’s remember that Mohler has announced that he will be casting a vote for a president who has lowered the bar on public morality and has done everything in his power to redefine the meaning of “truth.” As long as Trump is president, Mohler will be fighting an up-hill battle on this front.

And here is Mohler talking about the book on the Eric Metaxas Show:

  • Mohler begins by discussing how Churchill stood-up to the “gathering storm” of Nazi Germany when “Britain’s establishment refused” to do so. Metaxas’s first response is: “We have to remember how vilified he [Churchill] was.”  Metaxas is a master at turning any conversation into a story about his own apparent victimization. He goes on to remind Mohler that when Churchill was “proven right” about Hitler, “the whole world thought, my goodness, this guy’s a prophet.” And Metaxas doesn’t just stop there. He suggests similar things are happening today. Anyone who has followed Metaxas over the last several years can easily read between the lines here. Metaxas believes that by defending Donald Trump he will one day be seen as something akin to Churchill–a hero and prophet.
  • Both Metaxas and Mohler like to fashion themselves as historians. They love to talk about the historical forces that have led to the decline of Christianity in the West. And some of what they say is correct. But they fail to see how their entire conversation on this show has also been shaped by historical forces. These are the forces that led them to embrace the Christian Right political playbook as their guide for changing the world. To use Mohler’s own words, “this didn’t happen out of a vacuum. It happened out of a historical context we can see happening.” So I ask: What “historical context” has led Metaxas and Mohler to define “biblical values” solely in terms of abortion, marriage, and religious liberty? What historical forces have led them to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade is the only way of reducing abortion in America?
  • Mohler’s discussion of “cultural power” sounds like a soft Seven-Mountains Dominionism. He stops short of saying that Christians must reclaim these cultural spheres and restore America to a Christian nation, but I am pretty sure he believes this. We once again see Mohler’s historical and cultural conditioning at work. He believes that American culture is lost and the only way to be a faithful Christian in this world is to win it back through the ballot box. Where did he learn this? Why does he believe this is true? What has shaped him on this front?
  • The discussion turns to slavery. Based on this conversation, I assume Mohler and Metaxas, if they were alive in 1860, would have been one of the 170 Americans who voted for Gerrit Smith of the Liberty Party.  He was the only abolitionist candidate on the ballot.  I have commented on Metaxas’s comparisons between abortion and slavery here.
  • Mohler says, “God did not make us so that we can actually operate in a secular [society].” What does this mean? Is Mohler suggesting that God made us to live in a Christian nation? In the Christendom of the West? As I understand it, God made us to live as members of his Kingdom. Historically, the Church has always thrived in a secular society. Mohler seems to confuse the Kingdom of God with the United States of America.
  • Mohler talks about the 2020 election. He says if you are a “swing” voter you “have no clue what is going on–we are in two Americas.” Indeed, the divides are great. But let’s remember that these clueless swing voters made Trump president in 2016 and Trump is going to need them again in 2020. They are not as deplorable as Mohler makes them out to be. Metaxas follows-up by calling swing voters and third-party voters “ignorant.” And then he says that “God will judge you if you don’t vote.” I assume he means that God will judge us if we don’t vote for Trump. Metaxas doesn’t try to hide his arrogance. Like most fundamentalists, he calls out the wrath of God on anyone who does not agree with him politically.
  • The interview ends with Mohler defending his decision to vote for Donald Trump in 2020. He claims that his decision is part of his “political stewardship.” Again, Mohler thinks about politics and public engagement in a very limited way. Many African-American Southern Baptists, as well as those who see the application of Christian faith to social issues in a broader and more consistently biblical way, have criticized him for his narrow political vision. Mohler likes to talk about “the culture.” And he makes some important points about religious liberty for Christian schools. But I heard nothing in this interview–either from Metaxas or Mohler– about the Gospel.

What Happened to the Moral Clarity of Some American Evangelicals Between 2016 and 2020?

Trump and Bible

Sarah Pulliam Bailey’s recent story at The Washington Post adds to what I posted about  earlier this week (here and here).  Here are some new things we learn from her piece:

  •  Mohler’s son-in-law is a Trump appointee in the State Department.
  •  Dwight McKissic, a prominent African-American Southern Baptist pastor in Arlington, Texas, will no longer recommend Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where Mohler serves as president) to African-American young people who want to attend seminary.
  • Karen Swallow Prior, a prominent voice in the evangelical community, has taken this moment to say that she will vote for a third-party candidate in November.
  • Wayne Grudem, a conservative evangelical theologian, praised Mohler’s decision. Grudem said, “It is hard for me to think of someone who’s done much good for the country in that short amount of time.  (I re-affirm what I said about Grudem back in December).

Some quick thoughts for my fellow evangelicals who will be changing their vote to Trump in November:

1. On abortion: I am still convinced (as I argued in Believe Me) that overturning Roe v. Wade and winning the federal courts will not end abortion in America. In a broken world, abortions will continue. We must work, as citizens of the Kingdom of God, to reduce them. As someone who cares about the dignity of human beings and the protection of the vulnerable unborn, I think expanded health care and poverty relief, both staples of the Democratic Party platform, will keep the number of abortions in America on a downward trajectory. As a Christian, I thank God for this downward trajectory and I want to do everything I can to keep lowering the number of abortions in America.

2. As someone who has watched and studied Trump every day of his presidency, I think his presidency has been a moral disaster–for the country and the church. Nothing has changed in four years. If anything, it has gotten worse. Trump has succeeded in weakening (even further) the moral clarity of American evangelicals. And not just the court evangelicals.

3. Religious liberty issues are real. I will continue to push for a more pluralist society in which Christian institutions are permitted to exercise their faith–even on sexual issues–with freedom. On the other hand, we can’t be afraid of persecution if and when it comes. We can’t turn to an immoral strongman to protect us. Perhaps persecution may be exactly what the church needs right now. I hope not. It doesn’t sound fun. But if this happens, Jesus promises that we will be “blessed.” It will reveal our citizenship in the Kingdom of God. And if history is a guide, it just might draw more people to consider the Christian faith.

4. Mohler says in his video that his decision to vote for Trump in 2020 is based on his “Christian (or Biblical) worldview.”

What is this thing called “Christian worldview?” Here is the twitter feed of The Project on Lived Theology at the University of Virginia:

Here is a friend on Facebook:

I love how targeting tax breaks towards the .01% and eliminating basic rights of worker protection, championing measures to exacerbate gross inequalities of income and generational wealth, eradicating by executive agency fiat already precarious regulations about not dumping chemicals in water, engaging in a non-stop campaign to demonize even the slightest efforts to increase access to health care, and engaging in deliberately targeted efforts at voter suppression (targeted against black voters “with an almost surgical precision,” as the North Carolina Supreme Court put it) is now defined as the “Christian worldview” in politics, while the other side is “anti-Christian.”

I agree with the idea of viewing the world from the perspective of Christian faith–all of Christian faith. But I object when “Christian worldview” is invoked in a narrow and limited way that focuses on one or two issues. The idea that a Christian approach to politics should center around abortion and Supreme Court nominations is a very new phenomenon in the history of American evangelicalism and, more broadly, in the history of the global church. It is only about forty years old. This does not mean that evangelical political witness was perfect before the rise of the Christian Right (for example, the evangelical movement’s commitment to the Civil Rights Movement was weak at best),  but it does suggest that Al Mohler’s understanding of political engagement was shaped, and continues to be shaped, by the concerns of a group of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists who developed a successful political movement in the late 1970s. Mohler even admits this in the video when he talks about his unswerving support of Ronald Reagan.

As I have argued, this approach to politics is rooted in fear, power, nostalgia. It is deeply rooted in the false idea that the United States was founded as, and continues to be, a Christian nation. It is deeply rooted in the idea that big government was a threat to local  practices such as segregation. It is deeply rooted in the belief that new immigrants posed a threat, and continue to pose a threat, to white America in the wake of the 1965 Immigration Act. It is deeply rooted in the idea that public schools should be teaching Christians about God and, when prayer and Bible reading was removed from public schools, somehow God was removed as well. (This, it seems, is a pretty small view of God and a pretty weak view of the church as a site of spiritual formation for young people).

If one believes that a Christian worldview means we should always vote for a candidate who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and defend the “rights” of evangelical Christians, then it makes perfect sense to vote for Trump.  What I am suggesting is that this entire playbook is too narrow and relies too much on fear, power politics, and nostalgia. It ignores the vast majority of Christian teaching, especially as it relates to the poor, social justice, and the care of God’s creation. This is ironic for someone like Mohler who no doubt believes that his Christian worldview is built upon a belief in an inerrant Bible.  All of those mentioned in Pulliam-Bailey’s article are operating under this mostly unbiblical playbook.

 

Southern Baptist Leader Al Mohler Will Vote for Trump in 2020

mohler

You can watch Mohler explain his decision here.

  1. Mohler says that his “Christian worldview” has led him to vote for the GOP ticket despite his misgivings about Trump’s behavior. Mohler believes that a Christian worldview should lead evangelicals to vote for Trump and against Joe Biden in November.
  2. For Mohler, voting according to a “Christian worldview” means that an evangelical must vote for a candidate who is 1). pro-life on abortion; 2). is willing to use the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade; 3). upholds an originalist view of the Constitution; and 4). defends religious liberty as he defines it. Are these the only Christian issues that should inform an evangelical’s decision in the ballot box? (For the sake of time and space, let’s leave the debate over whether the Bible teaches an originalist view of the U.S. Constitution or the proper method to defend the life of the unborn for another day). Mohler is not a court evangelical, but his argument is identical to these Trump sycophants.
  3. In 1998, Mohler went on national television multiple times to call for the impeachment of Bill Clinton on the basis of his failures in character and personal morality. He did not vote for Trump in 2016 because he wanted to stay consistent with his 1998 statements. But this election is different, he claims. But is it? Granted, Trump is no longer (as far as we know) talking to entertainment reporters about grabbing women’s body parts, but can we honestly say that his character has improved over the last four years?
  4. Mohler says that the two major political parties in the United States are so different on moral issues that it is impossible for Christians to vote for a Democratic candidate. This, he says, is not bound to change anytime soon. As a result, Mohler claims he will vote for the GOP candidate, and will campaign against the Democratic candidate, for the rest of his life.

As many of you know, I offer an alternative way of thinking about Christian politics in Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.

Believe Me 3d

 

A Great Night “At” the Midtown Scholar Bookstore

midtown

Here is a taste of Yaasmeen Piper’s piece at The Burg:

However, that didn’t stop Midtown Scholar Bookstore from bringing its famous book talks to the community. They just had to get a bit more creative.

On Wednesday evening, Midtown Scholar hosted its very first virtual book talk. The new series kicked off with New York Times bestselling author Katherine Stewart and fellow author and American history professor at Messiah College, John Fea.

Our event series is such a foundational piece of what we do here at the Scholar,” said Alex Brubaker, bookstore manager. “We couldn’t let it die simply because we couldn’t meet in person. If we can contribute some semblance of normalcy to our lives at this moment, it’s worth it.”

Almost 200 people tuned into the bookstore’s Crowdcast, a live video platform used for webinars, Q&As and more. Some audience members were streaming the book talk from places outside Harrisburg, as far away as Chicago and even Canada.

Stewart discussed her latest book, “The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism.” Fea, author of “Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump,” led the discussion surrounding religion, politics and their intersection with religious nationalism.

“It’s not just about evangelicals,” Stewart said. “[The religious nationalism movement] includes many evangelicals, but also excludes evangelicals and includes a variety of both Protestant and non-Protestant forms of religion.”

Stewart’s book dives into how America’s religious conservatives evolved into the Christian nationalist movement, which, she said, is better funded and more organized than many people realize. She reveals how the movement relies on think tanks, advocacy groups, pastoral organizations and even other religious nationalists around the world.

Both authors and Brubaker sat in their own rooms, with books lining the walls and dim lighting, almost giving the feeling of being back in the bookstore. Aside from very few technical hiccups, the conversation flowed smoothly. Audience members were able to chat amongst themselves using the live chat on the right-hand side of their screens.

Read the rest here.

I’ll Be Live With Katherine Stewart on Wednesday Night “at” the Midtown Scholar

Stewart FeaOur face-to-face book event got canceled, but the Midtown Scholar Bookstore has moved us online!  Here is the announcement:

We’re thrilled to announce our very first virtual event! Join authors Katherine Stewart and John Fea via Crowdcast as they discuss The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. In the book, Stewart pulls back the curtain on the inner workings and leading personalities of a movement that has turned religion into a tool for domination, exposesing a dense network of think tanks, advocacy groups, and pastoral organizations. The Power Worshippers is a brilliantly reported book of warning and a wake-up call. Stewart’s probing examination demands that Christian nationalism be taken seriously as a significant threat to the American republic and our democratic freedoms.

Register here!

Religion and American Political Life: An Overview

Religion and Politcs

This is a nice overview from of the Université Paris Nanterre – Université Paris Lumières. (And thanks for giving a shout-out to Believe Me).  Here is a taste of his piece at The Conversation:

Younger generations are increasingly unaffiliated with a religion or a church, but they are also the generations least likely to vote which reduces their impact on the elections. Even if they voted more, as they did in 2018, America’s institutional political structure amplifies the power of whiter, more rural, more Christian voters.

Religion is thus likely to continue to play a major role in US elections for years to come. And with the help of what Katherine Stewart calls the “Christian nationalist machine,” Donald Trump will certainly make religious identity a central element of his campaign.

Read the entire piece here.

A Day at Messiah College With Students from Georgetown Day School

IMG_8575

The Georgetown Day School students get a lesson on the history and identity of Messiah College in Hostetter Chapel (photo by Susan Ikenberry)

Last year some faculty and administrators at Georgetown Day School (GDS) in Washington D.C. contacted me about the possibility of bringing some high school juniors and seniors to Messiah College as part of the school’s “minimester.” What is a minimester? Here is a description from the GDS website:

Georgetown Day School’s mission calls us to challenge the intellectual, creative and physical abilities of our students, and to encourage inquiry and self-reliance in those students as they grow into “lifelong learners.” In February of 2020, GDS students and faculty will participate in a three-day program designed to bring that mission to life through an immersive and experiential learning experience wholly separate from the normal day-to-day academic program of the school.

We’re calling this experience Minimester.

On February 26th – 28th, GDS teachers will lead dozens of deep, creative experiences with themes sprouted from the passions and interests of faculty and staff — passions that may or may not fall within the purview of their academic disciplines. Students will select the Minimester course in which they’d like to participate, and will spend the allotted three days immersing themselves in their chosen topic.

The students who came to Messiah College on February 27, 2020 were enrolled in a minimester course titled “A View from the Other Side: Partisan Politics in Trump’s America.” Here is a description of the course:

Over the course of our minimester, we will explore the other side — meaning the political, social, economic world beyond the typical GDS view of things. A variety of speakers, from “explainer” journalists and commentators to those who inhabit the conservative spectrum, will engage with us as we dive deeply into the current political landscape and the operative theme of, “how did we get here?” We’ll also journey outward, exploring the world beyond the Beltway and the GDS bubble focusing on candidates’ platforms and what it is that people have not been hearing for years from either Democrat or Republican candidates. We will consider what the world looks like to Americans living in Appalachia, the Rust Belt, and other parts of the country, and why they might take a chance on a non-politician who says, “No one cares about you, but I do.” One hoped-for outcome might be a service trip to Appalachia in the Spring. As Zora Neale Hurston wrote, “You have to go there to know there.”

This course included conversations at GDS with Juan Williams of Fox News, Kate Bennett of CNN (and author of the book Free Melania), and conservative Republican Washington Post writer Gary Abernathy, among others.

GDS teachers Lisa Rauschart (History), Sue Ikenberry (Politics), and Michael Manson (English) were familiar with my book Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump and asked me if the could bring students up to Mechanicsburg to talk about why evangelicals support Donald Trump. They also wanted to learn more about a region that went heavily for Trump in 2016.  Throughout the course of the day, students and their teachers talked about getting out of the “GDS Bubble” and having an experience in a place that was unfamiliar to them. Most of these kids grew up in liberal and progressive Washington D.C.-area homes.

Fifteen students, the aforementioned teachers, and Gary Abernathy arrived at Messiah College by bus around mid-morning.  I took them on a very short tour of campus.  We stopped in the chapel to talk about Messiah College’s history and its connection to the Anabaptism, Wesleyan, and Pietist streams of Christianity.  The students seemed particularly interested in Messiah’s commitment to pacifism.  They were also surprised when I told them that the school, in accordance with its Anabaptist heritage, does not fly an American flag on campus.  These were bright kids destined for Ivy League and other elite colleges and they displayed a deep curiosity about Messiah’s roots and our unique approach to Christian education.  (I told them that if they liked what they saw and heard they should apply! 🙂 )

We treated the group to lunch at the dining hall (thanks Pete Powers and the School of Humanities) where they were joined by three Messiah students (including our own Annie Thorn) who were gracious enough to take time out of their day to visit with these high school students.

IMG_8588

L to R: Katy, Annie, and Chloe were great hosts! (photo by Susan Ikenberry)

IMG_8592

With GDS teacher Michael Manson and Washington Post writer Gary Abernathy solving the world’s problems in Martin Commons on the campus of Messiah College (photo by Susan Ikenberry)

After lunch we headed to downtown Mechanicsburg where we met local historian John Klinger at the Mechanicsburg Museum Association.  Klinger gave a short lecture on the history of Mechanicsburg and then took us on a walking tour of the town, ending at the historic Frankenberger Tavern on Main Street. The students got a full taste of the town, including one house that had a huge Confederate flag flying on its front porch. While I am no fan of this flag, it provided a wonderful educational moment.  I reminded the kids that they were no longer in Georgetown.

The day ended back at Messiah College with a conversation about evangelicals Trump.  I used the time to define evangelicalism using Bebbington’s Quadrilateral and tried to explain Messiah College’s relationship to the larger evangelical world.  I distinguished Messiah from Liberty University, a Christian school of which most of the students were familiar.  Some of the students had no idea that Christian colleges were not all alike.

I explained why I wrote Believe Me, said a few things about the central argument of the book, and then let the students ask questions. (Students received a copy of Believe Me as part of the minimester course).  This was the highlight of the day for me.  These kids wanted to talk about everything–abortion, gay marriage, religious liberty, immigration, and the way Trump was using evangelicals in the 2020 election.  I am guessing that many of them agreed with my conclusions about Trump, but disagreed with my reasons for opposing him. They were respectful and intellectually curious. A scheduled 45-minute session lasted close to 90-minutes and we continued talking as we left Boyer Hall.

Fea in Boyer with GDS

Why do so many evangelicals support Donald Trump? (photo by Susan Ikenberry)

Fea with GDS students

The conversation continued well after the former session was over (photo by Lisa Rauschart)

When we got on the bus, Abernathy thanked me for hosting the group and then told me, with a smile that could only come from spending a long today together, that he disagreed with just about everything I said.  I laughed and told him that he would get the last word with the students as they drove back to D.C. 🙂

At the end of the day one of the students asked me for some tips about how to overcome the divisiveness and partisanship in American culture today.  I suggested that we need more days like this one!  She agreed.  As these kids head off to college and find themselves in positions where they will be able to change the world, I hope they will remember their visit to Messiah College and their experience in central Pennsylvania.  Thanks for coming and letting us see ourselves through your eyes.  I learned a lot from the visit!

Darryl Hart Reviews *Believe Me*

Believe Me 3dDarryl Hart reviews Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump alongside Peter Wehner’s The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump.  I must have missed this review when it appeared in the Winter 2019 edition of the traditionalist conservative quarterly Modern Age.  Apparently the Intercollegiate Studies Institute saw fit to republish the review at its website.

Anyone who follows Hart on twitter (@oldlife) knows that he is a regular critic of my blog, public writing, and views on Donald Trump, but I at least appreciate his willingness to engage with my ideas.

The only place where I would quibble with Hart’s understanding of my argument is when he writes about my “credentials.”  Hart writes:

Recent books by John Fea and Peter Wehner…are remarkably useful for understanding how broad swaths of American Protestants assess not simply the presidency of Donald Trump but the history and character of the United States. Both authors are laymen in evangelical churches and have no professional standing as church officials. But both writers are also experts in professions that encourage members to make judgments about American politics and society. Fea teaches U.S. history at Messiah College, an evangelical liberal arts school in central Pennsylvania, and Wehner has been a staffer in three Republican presidential administrations and is now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

These credentials distinguish Fea and Wehner from the ordinary evangelical in the pew. At the same time, both authors vehemently critique President Trump and the evangelicals who voted for him on grounds that rely little on the expertise that comes with historical inquiry or political experience. Instead, they rely on the moralistic squint that born-again Protestants have made a trademark of Christian devotion.

Anyone who has read Believe Me knows that the book is filled with American history.  So while I have never understood my book as a work of history, I think my training in American history has indeed contributed to my moral critique.

Read the review here.

The *Believe Me* Book Tour Comes to Mechanicsburg Church of the Brethren

Church of Brethren

I had a great visit yesterday with an adult education class at Mechanicsburg (PA) Church of the Brethren.  The class is reading Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump and it was a privilege to be present to answer questions and talk more about the book.

We spent a lot of time exploring theological, political, and historical factors that led so many evangelical to support Trump in 2016, but we also talked about a vision for Christian politics defined by hope, humility, and an informed understanding of American history.  Class members had questions about abortion, “end times” theology, environmentalism, the 2020 election, and how to think more Christianly about political engagement.

As Christian political scientist Glenn Tinder explains, politics requires “attentiveness” and “availability.”  Attentive people are aware of what others are “doing, suffering, [and] saying.” But they also make themselves available.  They see the needs of the world and ask: “Is there anything I can do about it?”  If we think about politics this way, then churches are always engaged in political activity.  And if churches are always engaged in political activity, then it also has a responsibility to think deeply about how to exercise such engagement in accordance with scripture.

Thanks to Warren Eshbach for the invitation.

Chatting About Evangelicals and Trump With Rob Schenk

Believe Me 3dI recently had the honor and privilege of being a guest on Rob Schenk’s podcast “Schenk Talks Bonhoeffer.” We chatted about my book Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump and evangelicals and politics more broadly. Perhaps some of you remember my post about Schenk from a few days ago.  He is the evangelical pastor who had a seat at the table for many of the conversations and initiatives that launched the Christian Right in the 1980s.

Listen here.

During the conversation, Schenk talks about his attendance at a prayer meeting on the day of Trump’s inauguration.  He bumped into a leading court evangelical and suggested that evangelicals needed to “recalibrate our moral compass” to bring it more in line with Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount.  The court evangelical responded: “We don’t have time for that, we have serious work to do.”

I hope you enjoy our conversation.

Wehner Takes on Grudem: “There Is No Christian Case for Trump”

Grudem 23

Trump defender Wayne Grudem

Today at The Atlantic, Peter Wehner writes “when faith is treated as an instrumentality , it’s bad for politics and worse for the Christian witness.”  Anyone who reads this blog, or has read Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, knows that I agree with him.  In this piece he engages Wayne Grudem’s criticism of Mark Galli’s December 2019 Christianity Today editorial.

Wehner is a fellow at the  Ethics and Public Policy Center.

A taste:

It isn’t enough for many of Trump’s evangelical supporters to say that, by their lights, he is advancing policies that promote the common good even as he is acting in unethical ways that deeply trouble them. In that difficult trade-off, they could admit, they have decided that the former should take priority over the latter. Instead, they have created a cartoonish image of the president, pretending that his character flaws are trivial and inconsequential, while his policy achievements put him near the top rank of American presidents.

What’s most interesting to me in all this is the psychology at play. From what I can tell, in many cases Trump’s most devoted evangelical supporters are blind to what they’re doing, so in a sense they’re not acting cynically or in bad faith, even as they are distorting reality.

I have observed firsthand that if you point out facts that run counter to their narrative, some significant number of the president’s supporters will eventually respond with indignation, feeling they have been wounded, disrespected, or unheard. The stronger the empirical case against what they believe, the more emotional energy they bring to their response. Underlying this is a deep sense of fear and the belief that they are facing an existential threat and, therefore, can’t concede any ground, lest they strengthen those they consider to be their enemies. This broader phenomenon I’m describing is not true of all Trump supporters, of course, and it is hardly confined to Trump supporters. But I would say that in our time, it is most pronounced among them.

I wish it were otherwise. When I started my Christian journey, at the end of high school, I never assumed that Christians would escape human foibles and human frailties. But I thought that faith would have more power, including more transformative power, than I have often witnessed, and that followers of Jesus would (imperfectly) allow a faith ethic to shape their understanding of things. That more than most, they would speak truth to power. Too often, they have denied truth in order to gain and keep power.

That isn’t to say I haven’t witnessed many lives that have been transformed by faith, including lives that have deeply touched and shaped my own. But neither can I deny what I have seen, which is that, especially in politics, the Christian faith is far too often subordinated to ideology, to tribalism, to dehumanizing those in the other tribe. Faith is an instrumentality, something to be weaponized. That’s bad for politics; it’s worse for the Christian witness.

Read the entire piece here.

Can Any of the Democratic Candidates Appeal to Evangelicals?

DemDebate

Here is a taste of my recently published piece at Religion News Service:

Do the current Democratic candidates for president have any chance of winning evangelicals in November 2020?

Probably not.

Of the candidates left in the Democratic primary race, Pete Buttigieg has made the most of his Christian faith. Buttigieg regularly quotes the Bible on the campaign trail and is always ready to remind us that the Christian right does not have a monopoly on the language of faith.

But for many evangelicals, Buttigieg’s Bible-infused sermonettes seem indistinguishable from the usual Democratic talking points. One wonders if there is anything about his understanding of Christianity that would put him at odds with party orthodoxy.

Over the last couple of years, I have talked with a lot of Trump-voting evangelicals. Some go to my church. Some are in my family. We have exchanged emails and social media messages. I met many of them during the tour for my book “Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.”

Based on this anecdotal evidence, I know that a lot of evangelicals will vote for Trump again. I’ve even met a few evangelicals who voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 but plan to vote for Trump in 2020 because he appoints conservative Supreme Court justices, fights for religious liberty (as defined by conservative evangelicals) and defends the interests of Israel.

But I have also met people who voted for Trump in 2016 and are looking for a justification — any justification — to vote for a Democrat in 2020.

Read the rest here.

The *Believe Me* Paperback Tour is Shaping Up!

Believe Me 3dEerdmans Publishing is sending me back on the road with the paperback edition of Believe Me; The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump. Learn more about the tour, and how you can get involved, here or here.

The hardback tour, which included stops at the Midtown Scholar, Politics & Prose,  Hearts & Minds Bookstore, University of Chicago Seminary Co-Op Bookstore, Valparaiso University, Hope College, Taylor University, John Brown University, Southern Methodist University, Princeton University, Penn State University, University of Southern California, University of Colorado, and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, among others.

The booking for the 2020 tour (January through Election Day) is underway.  This is what we have so far.  We are always adding dates.

February 2, 2020
Mechanicsburg (PA) Church of the Brethren

March, 12 2020
Midtown Scholar, Harrisburg.  Conversation with author Katherine Stewart

April 1, 2020
Malone College, Canton, OH

April 23-24, 2020
Festival of Faiths,  Louisville, KY

June 5, 2020
Policy History Conference, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

September 17-19, 2020
Geneva College, Beaver Falls, PA

September 27- 29, 2020
Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, FL

Please send booking requests to Christine Walter: cwalter(at)messiah(dot)edu