Vox has a post this morning about some people I don’t know, writing an opinion in a fake news site I don’t read to tell me what I should think about things that I don’t care about. Well done, guys.
As is my custom, I prefer to comment here rather than hog someone else’s comment stream.
As the election retreats like a hurricane heading back out to sea, first responders are assessing the damage left in its wake.
Drama queen much? A majority of Americans elected Trump, according to our election laws. It’s only a disaster if you were supporting the other guy. If you don’t like the result, try again in 4 years, just like EVERY 4 years.
One casualty is the reputation of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism was closely associated with the campaign of Donald J. Trump, and more than 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for the president-elect.
Typical Post Hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Evangelicals vote as individuals, like everyone else and they individually vote the better choice of 2 candidate running, based on the candidates platforms. This has nothing to do with evangelism or evangelists. Since they are unrelated, there is no blowback or harm to the reputation of evangelists.
This, despite large numbers of African-American, Latino, Asian, young and female evangelicals who were fiercely opposed to the racism, sexism and xenophobia of Mr. Trump’s campaign and the hypocrisy of a candidate who built a casino empire while flouting morality.
This despite the fierce stupidity of large numbers of blacks, hispanics and young women who believed the character assassination and attacks against personality instead of examining the facts. He didn’t build a casino empire. He built a real estate and entertainment empire, which included some casinos. And he was running against Hillary Clinton. Remember that when you toss out words like “flouting morality”.
As a result, much of the good that went by the name “evangelicalism” has been clouded over; now a new movement is needed to replace it.
(YAWN). I’m sorry. Were you saying something? The guys who attack evangelism whenever it doesn’t suit them think it needs to change to suit them. How astonishing. Evangelism is the single focus on the spread of the Good news of Jesus Christ. It has nothing at all to do with voting demographics or electoral outcomes. NOTHING. It does not need to be replaced. It has nothing to apologize for.
When it comes to religious identity in America, the fastest-growing group is the “nones.” Nearly a quarter of all Americans, and over 35 percent of millennials, report no religious affiliation. Nones, many of whom grew up within evangelicalism, often still affirm faith in God. They left the church because they gave up on evangelical leadership. Nothing sums up their objections more clearly than evangelicals’ embrace of Mr. Trump. Didn’t Jesus say, “Blessed are the meek” and “Love your enemies”?
I have no idea where this is going. Are they claiming that because “nones” are growing fastest (Moslems would disagree) that everyone else should follow their lead? There are lots of reasons why younger people leave the church. the Evangelical churches are not immune to this. It is not a problem related to politics or elections. And the last sentence reeks of desperation. The need to throw in something Biblically, when you don’t know anything actually from the Bible that would back your claims.
But Jesus-centered faith needs a new name. Christians have retired outdated labels before. During the late 19th century, when scientific rationalism fueled the questioning of Scripture, “fundamentalism” arose as an intelligent defense of Christianity. By the 1930s, however, fundamentalism was seen as anti-intellectual and judgmental. It was then that the term “evangelicalism” was put forward by Christianity Today’s first editor, Carl F. H. Henry, as a new banner under which a broad coalition of Jesus followers could unite.
Right. Because marketing is more important than ideology. The form is more important than the substance. You allow your enemies to frame the very words you use to describe yourselves then abandon those words because they are unpopular with your enemies.
But beginning with the culture wars of the 1980s, the religious right made a concerted effort to align evangelicalism with the Republican Party. By the mid-’90s, the word had lost its positive connotations with many Americans. They came to see Christians — and evangelicals in particular — as anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environment and anti-immigrant and as the champions of guns and war.
Who is this “they” you speak of? America is dominantly Christian. Are you saying Christians see themselves as all those “bad things”? How can any group that is dominated by its women be called “anti-women”? How can any group that is at the forefront in taking Ceasar’s silver to import and care for immigrants be called “anti-immigrant”? How does the environment even come into the discussion about evangelicals and their voting habits? What I really see is anti-christian intellectuals (the type of people who can get published in fake news sites like the NYT any time they like) telling Christians to stop being the straw men of Christians that the anti-Christian Left has created about them.
Mr. Trump did not create these contradictions, but his victory has pulled the roof off the building we once called home. It’s time to build a new home.
Who is this “we” you speak of? I can tell you with near certainty that the evangelicals who voted for Trump are perfectly happy with their electoral choice and their church choice. Just like the Black churches prayed feverishly for Obama and praised God when he won.