I read somewhere that 81 % of all white evangelical christians who voted in the Iowa primary voted for DJT. I’ve now gone back and tried to research where I found this nugget, but to no avail. I’m reluctant to use data that I can’t verify from at least two authentic sources, but in this case… this bit raised so many interesting issues that I’ve decided to jump in the deep end without water wings. Syllogistically, the phrase evangelical christians seems at first look to be redundant. I think, but don’t know for sure, that while all evangelicals are Christians, all Christians are not evangelicals. Which then begs the question why does this apply only to white evangelical Christians. Do black or browns not qualify? And then the big question is what is an evangelical and why would they more or less vote as a herd for one who is clearly not of their tribe.
According to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, the word evangelical is rooted in both Latin and Greek. Evangelismus from the former and euangelion from the latter. Both refer to gospel and good news morphing over time in english to the idea of spreading the good news or spreading the gospel. I should have known this as I grew up in a Southern Baptist church where missionaries who took on the task of taking the word of God to our heathen brothers were the closest thing you could find to a religious rock star. In addition, I was a member in good standing of the Royal Ambassadors an organization targeting preteen and teenage boys. It must have been there that I first became aware of the so-called “Great Commission” expressed in Matthew 23:19-20. I’ll quote it here because it is central to one’s understanding of the corps of zealous, well meaning men and women who circle the globe “spreading the word”. It reads, in the King James version of the bible, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always , even unto the end of the world.” Pretty clear instructions, wouldn’t you say. And I guess it worked after a fashion as Christianity spread to the four corners over a few hundred years and became the religion of choice for wide swaths of the world’s great unwashed.
Now fast forward a few centuries and we find that Evangelism had become the outgrowth of Evangelicals and had become almost a religion unto itself. I may be wading in deep water, but David Beddington, a noted Christian historian has proferred the theory that there are four principle aspects of what he calls evangelicalism: conversionism (born again), biblicism (inerrancy and infallibility of the bible), crucicentrism (atonement), and activism (preaching and social activism). See, it gets pretty deep pretty quickly. I’m not going to try to parse this down to the level of my ability to understand, but my point is that there is, indeed, a thoughtful, working definition of Evangelism and thus, Evangelicals
Ok you say, but what does that have to do with voting. Well it shouldn’t, and at one time it didn’t. One of the cornerstones of conservative Christian movements was the separation of church and state. Keep the government out of the church house and keep the church busy saving souls, not practicing politics. The Southern Baptists were among the first to espouse this idea of “separation”, and chief amount them was the iconic evangelistic preacher, Billy Graham, who said in an interview with Parade Magazine in 9881, “I don’t want to see political bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.” Wow! Where are you dear Billy when we need you?
There is now much being said and talked about among the literati of the awkward marriage of a large slice of the evangelical camp and the hard political right embodied by none other than the aforementioned DJT. Nothing I’ve read or heard so far provides an adequate explanation why DJT, who evidently doesn’t know the difference between 2 (Second) Corinthians and The Cat in the Hat, enjoys the support of the vast majority of self-described “white evangelical Christians”. No. I’m not going to give you the litany of reasons why DJT should not travel easily with the Evangelical flock. His failings are well known and well documented….but then again there is that forgiveness thing…but when pressed, DJT avers that he’s not interested in repentance, and doesn’t need forgiveness. Hmmm?
The only thing I can figure out is that the Evangelical world has morphed into two segments. The first of which sticks to their biblical roots and can quote Matthew 28:19-20 at the drop of a hat, er, bible. These I would call Theological Evangelicals. While they might pray for DJT they are not likely to proselytize for him. They remain the Billy Graham part of the flock. The second group comprises the vast majority of the 81% and are tied to the bloviation of DJT by a handful of 3rd rail social issues…prayer in school, abortion, gender identity, 10 Commandments on the courthouse lawn, xenophobia, etc. Let’s call them, for lack of a better term, Political Evangelicals. They too know their biblical citations, but have added the secret sauce of socio/political issues to the mix. I wonder though how they reconcile their religious view of the world and biblical dogma with the political mantra of the hard right and DJT. It calls to mind the oft quoted admonition of Mark 8:36…”For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and loses his own soul?”
One rather far fetched explanation is the Cyrus the Great Theory. Cyrus the Great, as I’m sure you remember, was Founder and King of the Persian Empire circa 530 BCE. He is noted (and celebrated) for, among other things, liberating the Jews from Babylon from whence they had been imprisoned by the evil Nebuchadnezzar and returning them to Jerusalem where they belonged, thereby serving God’s plan. So far so good. But then why, said the holy men of the time, did God choose Cyrus, a noted pagan for this most holy of holy tasks. That was a head scratcher for while, but they quickly circled their theological wagons and opined that God’s will might well be served by a “broken vessel”. That even though Cyrus the Great was indeed a pagan, he had, indeed, served God’s will. They saw no contradiction, just as there was no contradiction of having another “broken vessel” in the personhood of Trump serve the will of God in spite of a few well known personal foibles. Well, this rather inconvenient rationalization certainly got one thing right….the broken vessel and DJT.
I’m also reminded that Machiavelli first posed the corollary question of whether the end justifies the means. I’ve been in the position of arguing both sides of this age old question, but agree with most of the learned world that it does not. One cannot use a morally corrupt vessel to achieve even a good, desirable end. Aldous Huxley, philosopher and author of Brave New World opined, and I agree, that “the end cannot justify the means for the simple reason that the means employed determines the nature of the ends produced.” I conclude, after some amount of thought, that the idea of God appointing a man of the character of Trump to serve his ends is in itself corrupt. And if there is an omniscient, benevolent God, he would certainly make a better choice.
