White Evangelicals, Power, Fear, and Trump

An earlier post mentioned that differentiating the subcategories of category 2 () was very difficult. This post, the first of several on the Christian Right or evangelicals, illustrates this difficulty. I place this post under the category of Christian Right although it mentions the 2016 election in which 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Since the late ’70s the Christian Right has significantly and continually affected our society and polity. I believe this makes it worthy to treat as a separate subcategory. At times, however, I will treat the Christian Right within the context of Trump’s nomination and election.

In a recent paper in the Journal of Religion and Society Eun-Young Julia Kim examines 110 online articles from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2018, about Trump and evangelicals. She self identifies herself as “affiliated with a Christian denomination, which aligns closely with evangelicalism in some doctrinal beliefs.” However, some disagreement exists within her denomination as to whether it should be categorized as evangelical.

Kim identifies “pursuit of political power and protection from perceived threats” as the major theme emerging from her analysis. Two secondary themes, which I will discuss in later posts, emerge from her examination: “belief in America as a Christian nation” and “political expediency and insensitivity to immorality and harm to others.”

The pursuit of political power and perceived threats

Power. About half the articles Kim examines described white evangelicals as feeling threatened and powerless. The progressive liberal policies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama caused this sense of marginalization and powerlessness. She quotes Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, as saying that evangelicals “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists.” This marginalization and sense of powerlessness generates in evangelicals a desire for a strong national leader. A strong man who can well address their urgent need to protect their religious freedom, a leader who can enact legislation that aligns with their Christian principles. Evangelicals see Trump as a fighter and warrior who can counter those politicians who “threaten or disdain their Christian values.”

Threats and fears. Further, these articles point out that evangelicals fear the cultural changes taking place in America. The primary threats are three-fold. The threats include (1) the legalization of abortion, (2) same-sex marriages, and (3) the Supreme Court’s prohibition against promoting religious beliefs or practices in schools. For evangelicals, political issues converge into religious issues because they are convinced “the future of America is at grave risk.”

Kim briefly discusses the Concerned Women of America whose mission is to “help its members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy.” She notes the irony of an organization comprised entirely of women supporting Trump, who many see as a misogynist and philanderer. She quotes Penny Nance, CEO and President of CWA to explain this paradox: “None of us are deluded into thinking [Trump is] a Bible-banging evangelical” but “airing moral qualms about the president only hurts their cause.” Another possible explanation, says Kim, could be patriarchy wherein misbehaviors of powerful males, often sexual abuse, are ignored.

Another threat to evangelicals resides in their white identity. Several articles point out that white evangelicals are threatened by immigration. Trump attracts white evangelicals because of his anti-immigration beliefs. White evangelicals see Trump’s anti-immigration position as helping to create a white Christian nation. Kim points out that her word frequency analysis of the 110 articles show the most frequently used words in order are Trump, evangelicals, and white. She also references former Attorney General Sessions’ use of Romans 13 (obey the laws of government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order) to support Trump’s zero-tolerance border policy and its family separation focus.

A couple of remarks from well-known white evangelical leaders demonstrate this threat from or fear of the other. Jerry Falwell Jr., the son of the founder of the Moral Majority and current president of Liberty University, said, “If more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in.” Robert Jeffress, pastor of the 13,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, identified other religious groups such as Mormons, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus as heretics and described Catholics as an instrument of Satan.

Kim ends her section on political power and threats this way: “Cultural change resulting from what they perceive as anti-Christian legislation and the influx of immigrants is viewed as a threat to white evangelicals, and their anxiety serves as a galvanizing force among them. They have found escape from helplessness in aggressive and feisty Trump, who they believe can help fix the ‘broken’ culture to “make American great again.”

“Be Not Afraid”

Fear. As I read Kim’s paper and more especially as I read John Fea’s book Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, I thought of Pope John Paul II’s oft quoted phrase of “Be not afraid.” Fea comes close to this when he references Marilynne Robinson’s statement that “fear is not a Christian habit of mind.”

A historian who identifies himself as a white conservative evangelical, Fea believes it is possible to write an entire history of American evangelism as the story of a people failing miserably at overcoming fear with hope, trust, and faith in their God, as he said in a recent article in The Atlantic. But he also makes the point that there were always evangelicals who argued for an alternative history.

Relative to contemporary white evangelism and Trump, Fea argues that evangelicals failed to persuade mainstream American culture of their views but were quite successful at politically radicalizing an evangelical subculture. Evangelicals used, according to him and others, a playbook written in the late ’70s that tended toward nativism, racism, and intolerance. A playbook, he says, that divides rather than unites.

Power. He calls Trump’s evangelical leaders “Court Evangelicals” because they are like members of the kings’ courts who sought influence and worldly approval by flattering monarchs rather than speaking truth to power. Evangelical leaders seek political power. They seek access to the White House and praise Trump’s faith-friendly policies. Fea argues that humility trumps power and wonders what it would look like to replace the pursuit of power with humility. (see my post on the importance to leadership of intellectual humility.)

Nostalgia. In addition to pursuit of power and the politics of fear, Fea criticizes white evangelicals for being taken with nostalgia. This commitment to nostalgia makes evangelical leaders intellectually lazy. They prefer to respond to cultural change by “trying to reclaim a world that is rapidly disappearing and has little chance of coming back.” They spend time and money on political influence rather than doing the hard work required “for engaging a more diverse society with the claims of Christian orthodoxy.”

Finally, Fea notes that Trump’s most favorite phrase is “believe me,” as in “”I love women. Believe me, I love women. I love women. And you know what else, I have great respect for women, believe me.” This explains the title of his book.

Comment

We live in a baffling world, and, for me, nothing has been more baffling than trying to understand why white evangelicals became and remain intense Trump supporters. About 81 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump, a greater percentage than for Bush, McCain, or Romney. The emphasis is on white, because non-white evangelicals largely did not vote for Trump.

If I were forced to use Biblical language, I would see Trump as the “Antichrist.” He tramples over, much less ignores, what I believe are the dominant tenets threaded through the Bible, especially the Gospels. I would add to this Trump’s total disregard for human dignity; his amoral character; and his triggering of a dangerous backsliding of democracy with his continued attacks on truth, on the mainstream media as fake news, on the rule of law, on the independence of the judiciary, and his total ignorance and disregard of constitutional and democratic norms (which are more significant than the rule of law per se) and blatant authoritarianism.

Fea’s discussion of “Court Evangelicals” raises in my mind a question about the influence evangelical leaders, especially pastors, may have on their congregations. Do a large majority of white evangelicals’ support Trump primarily because they follow the preaching of their pastors and other evangelical leaders? If evangelical Court Leaders become much less Trumpian, or start opposing Trump, would congregations generally follow their lead – or would they continue to remain intensely Trumpian regardless of their pastors’ positions?

I also raise these questions because my readings of fundamentalism of the ’60s and of evangelicalism of the ’70s suggests, as implied by Kim, a patriarchal/authoritarian pattern.