The Power of Popular Culture Chapter 4 Donald Trump and Religion The issue of religion is anything but inconsequential; on the contrary it is a major factor in American politics and American culture. It has been from the beginnings of the United States through the 19th century and into the 1950s and early 1960s. Indeed, this has continued into the 21st century even though often no longer in forms that previous generations would have recognized or, anyway, would have regarded as legitimate. The break with the past took place in the years just before 1970 and became prominent thereafter. Despite, it should be added, a strong revival of "old time religion" in the Carter years, culminating during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. That was the era of the Moral Majority, of the national activism of Phyllis Schlafly that derailed the ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, of the Christian Coalition, and of a rising tide of conversions to Baptist and Evangelical Christian faith. Catholics were in the mix as were Orthodox Jews and, of course, the Mormons. This did not mean that the constellation of new and imported faiths that came to public attention in the 1970 era had disappeared. But the ending of the "sixties era" in the aftermath of the 1970 shootings at Kent State University, the rise of anti-religion and Atheism in those same years, various scandals involving high-profile Counter Culture icons like Timothy Leary, plus the effects of the revival of traditional religions, put the brakes on new religion for the next decade or so. But a new religious sensibility, heavily influenced by all those spiritual developments collectively known as the New Age, was here to stay. Hence, staid old hymns, formal attire when attending church, and reluctance to use new media, all began the ebb -and then became obsolete almost everywhere. In came Christian music that sounded a lot like contemporary Rock 'n Roll, informal attire like blue jeans worn at worship services, and an explosion of innovations in media with -and nobody saw it coming- Evangelicals becoming experts in the use of television for religious purposes. Only the Japanese new religions, Buddhist- or Shinto-derived, were competitive in this field anywhere in the world. What was also happening was the start of a precipitous decline in memberships of the so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations. They were called that because many well known large and influential churches in the later 19th century were located alongside major rail lines in the Northeast, a time when train travel predominated in the United States and when the center of American population was still near the Atlantic seaboard. Ross Douthat's 2010 book, Bad Religion, how we became a nation of heretics, discusses the last hurrah of the mainline Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and American (northern) Baptists in the 1950s when, so it seemed for maybe 15 years until about 1965, that what is now known as the Evangelical movement was fated to decline to insignificance. That was not how things turned out. Instead, the opposite happened. Year after year, starting in the late 1960s, maybe 1967 was the watershed, possibly 1968, the mainline more liberal denominations began to lose members in large numbers. What was so ironic was that these were the exact churches that had awakened the most to modern religious challenges and challenges from the newly revived political Left -which had been energized by opposition to the war in Viet Nam. The mainline churches were also responding to the Civil Rights movement, to the nascent "Women's Liberation" movement, and to similar stirrings among American Indians and Chicanos, and something parallel in the youth culture, then a very young and massive "baby boom" population. That is, the mainline denominations were positioning themselves for the future. The response of the future was "guess again." In about 1970 the mainline churches could claim that over 28% of all Americans belonged to a "modernist" (liberal) denomination. By 2014 this figure had declined to -depending on whose data you trust- 14% or even 12%. Evangelicals were about 17% of the US population in 1970. They peaked in about 1992 after an upsurge during the Reagan era, at 30%. Evangelicals now constitute 23% of the American population. Despite, it should be added, continued growth among some groups, like the Assemblies of God, from about 700,000 in 1970 to over 3 million today. Other religions have grown faster, like Buddhism, maybe 1/2 million in 1970 (counting Hawaii) to approximately 3.5 million now. And non-religions have grown faster still. People who self identify as Agnostics, for instance, roughly 10 million in 1970, have grown to over 32 million. We should also take note of the Mormons, who have increased steadily for the past 40 years, now over 6.5 million. How to classify members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is anyone's guess even though, clearly, they self-identify as Christian. We need to use religious statistics with caution. If you carry out a search for data, especially for historical changes, expect almost anything. Yet by combining information from Pew and other fairly reliable sources a clear picture emerges. Some religious groups are growing; some, like the Episcopal Church, are in free fall. Since 1970 membership in this denomination has declined 50%, from 4 million to 2 million. By some counts there are now more Hindus in America than Episcopalians. The exact same thing has happened to the United Church of Christ, declining from over 2 million to around 1 million. Jews have also declined, with their 1970 tally of 4% now somewhere around 2%. Methodist data is less certain because some are mainline, some are Evangelical, but the group as a whole also follows this pattern. Some denominations are holding steady in numbers but shrinking in terms of their percentage in the US population, like the American Baptist Church, 5 million, more-or-less, every year since the early 70s. Catholics are also in stasis, at about 22% of the population, but this figure is somewhat misleading, though, since white Catholics are possibly in a steeper decline that mainline Protestants. The Church manages to maintain its relative position, at least so far, because of an influx of Hispanics. Black Christians are overwhelmingly Protestant and, among them, are overwhelmingly Evangelical, especially Baptist. The ratio of traditional non-Evangelical black believers to Evangelical is approximately 3:1 in favor of Evangelicals. African-Americans are the most religious of any population in the United States although this may not be true at all in some urban centers with high rates of single parents. There are, for all practical purposes, no Agnostics among this population but some surveys pick up low percentages in single digits. This is the background for discussion of Donald Trump and religion, indeed, it is necessary for almost any discussion of religion in America. Many reporters, probably most reporters, simply don't know the facts and write as if their suppositions and guesses are as good as anything gets. Like another anecdote, this about a reporter who interviewed Evangelicals at a Christian university and asked about their attendance at "mass" -which was surely in the 0% range. What about Trump, himself? He educated himself to matters of faith during the election campaign, but, to put the best "spin" on it, the process was a crash course and it was obvious to nearly all Evangelicals that he started out at close to zero. He was a complete naif on the subject, totally uninformed, and uncomprehending of many basics of Christian religion. Indeed, some Evangelicals were very unhappy at the prospect of a Trump candidacy, with the Christian Post, last Spring, making its first ever statement about its politics, telling readers that Trump is unfit for the presidency and that Christians would be well-advised to vote for someone else in the Republican primaries. This had little impact; Trump was unbeatable against establishment candidates and Ted Cruz, who was able to gain some traction among Evangelical voters, fell far short. Who explained everything the best was Kirsten Powers in a September 2, 2015 article in USA TODAY entitled "Donald Trump, evangelical scam artist." "Trump is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them," Powers said, and he realized early on that he could not win the GOP primaries without the 'God vote.' Hence his conclusion "that the only way to win the Republican nomination was through an appeal to the conservative evangelical vote." This, of course, meant that Trump had problems. Surprisingly his sexcapades did not matter all that much. For sure his various 'liaisons' and multiples marriages caused a good deal of finger-wagging conversation among believers but, since Evangelicals tend to be forgiving about such matters because not a few celebrity pastors have done pretty much the same things (think Jim Baker), Trump skated past his seamy past. What he could not sidestep, however, were faith issues. He was on nobody's religion radar. As far as anyone could tell he was completely irreligious. So, Trump did what any good politician would do in a similar fix, he invented a religious _résumé_ (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1000&bih=521&q=define+résumé&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim_e73rI7SAhVC2WMKHfBqArEQgCsIPzAA) for himself. Part of his new persona was the claim that his favorite book is the Bible. Not bad. That's right up there with George W. Bush's 1999 statement that his favorite "political philosopher" is Jesus. George II didn't seem to know what a political philosopher is; Trump didn't seem to know what the Bible is. Certainly not what it says. Shortly after Trump's admission that the Holy Book meant so much to him he was asked what his favorite Bible passage is. As Kirsten put it: "Not particularly surprising was Trump’s inability to name a favorite verse in his favorite book." Hence the reports about the run up to Trump's appearance at Liberty University in January of 2016. Trump was busy reading the Bible and studying selected materials in its pages. Or so it has been reported. Ultimately not much seems to have stuck. The only Bible passage that he focused on during his speech to the assembled crowd was II Corinthians 3: 17. It goes: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Which, by itself, doesn't say much at all. You kind of need verse 18 also, about how Christ transforms your entire life and makes it anew. In any case, 3: 17 isn't exactly some sort of inspired selection. It is the motto of Liberty University and is on public display at many sites on campus. I sort of imagine Trump, during his cramming for the talk to students at the noted Baptist school, thinking : "What is this stuff, how does it do me any good? How can I boil it all down into a good selling point?" This is only my private guess, but the feeling is inescapable that this is what went through his mind at that time. Powers commented about a similar event the year before, which applies just as well to early 2016: "Twitter erupted with the hashtag #TrumpBible, along with Trump-style verses." Kirsten quoted two of the best: "Took God 6 days to create the universe. Bad management. I would've done it faster, cheaper & Satan would pay for it.” "Look I like Jesus. Anyone that can feed 5k people with 2 fish is sharp. Big mistake not charging. But I still like him." "These are funny," Kirsten continued, because they are so close to the truth." That they are. They capture the mentality of the man perfectly. Reminds me of the 1982 publication of the Reader's Digest version of the Bible. Trump has that kind of philosophy of life, too. There was a joke at the time that went like this: "Did you hear about the new Reader's Digest Bible? It has all 5 commandments and both Gospels." It also is no problem to imagine Donald Trump reading this and saying to himself: "What's funny about that? 5 commandments, 2 gospels, its all you really need." We might disagree about which 5, of course, but maybe that matter can be set aside for a rainy day. As for the gospels, speaking personally, I'd press really hard for at least three. In July of 2015 Trump said: “People are so shocked when they find ... out I am Protestant. I am Presbyterian. And I go to church and I love God and I love my church.” Which, as reports have it, he actually has attended on a few occasions. No-one has a right to question someone's sincerity about his beliefs. All things being equal, benefit of doubt is called for. Still, at that time, at the Family Leadership Summit, Trump was questioned to the effect if he had ever asked God for forgiveness. Trump's answer? "I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so. ... If I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't." This, to understate the case, is very strange. Not that forgiveness is the summon bonum of Christian faith, and not every question resolves into an issue of forgiveness, but it certainly is important. Indeed, the minimum requirement for faith as Christians see it, is asking the Lord to forgive your sins, to repent and start a new life in Christ. Where is any such thing in the worldview of Donald J. Trump? In fact, including at Liberty University, many Christians have said that Trump is a pretender as a believer, a hypocrite, and should not be supported. But not to worry. Another quote from Kristen Powers: "Trump has been praised by Jerry Falwell Jr. as "one of the greatest visionaries of our time" and lauded by Franklin Graham for “shaking up” the political process." Which gives you an idea of the depth of the loathing towards Hillary by virtually every Evangelical in America. Trump may be bad, but Hillary is evil incarnate. Trump favored abortion -he was pro-choice- at one time but now he opposes it. Hillary has always favored abortion and defends the idea every chance she gets. For an Evangelical that is no different than making a case for "good" murders. And if Trump lies about the women in his life and shady business deals, Hillary lies about everything. As she has done ever since the 1990s. The trouble is, said Powers: "Trump is a dangerous megalomaniac with a distorted sense of reality." We saw the outcome in November 2008; the verdict was: "It doesn't matter." This takes us to a November 19, 2016 article in Time magazine by Robert P. Jones, "Donald Trump and the Transformation of White Evangelicals." The essay is quite perceptive but does have its weaknesses. For example, in discussing 'religiosity,' for want of a better word, Jones noted that while Trump's spirituality was in serious doubt, how did he manage to win all those Evangelical votes? After all, Hillary was far more religious and has a church record as a lifelong Methodist. About which there is a degree of tone-deafness that anyone except journalists can perceive from a half mile away. The kind of Methodist Hillary is, that is the issue. Her kind is little different than Unitarianism, or the Left wing of the Episcopal Church. As Evangelicals see it, you can call that version of Methodism "Christian" as a courtesy, but it isn't really Christian at all. It is a different religion entirely. It is unrelated to any honest reading of the Bible. It disregards just about every Christian tradition known to history. And it turns Christ into a political shill for the Democratic Party -nonetheless schizophrenically interpreting him as the leader of endless naive children's crusades motivated by pietist sentimentality. Evangelical religion relies on a straight-forward reading of the Bible, it regards most Christian traditions as essential for the community, and its Christ is moreso one's conscience understood as a living presence that provides guidance for all of life; crusades, yes, but based on unarguable truths of faith that extend to the origins of Christianity itself rather then trendy visions that date to a few years ago when Leftists picked up yet another modern 'cause' based on shifts in public opinion. It is deeply moral in character. Which is what is so troubling about what Evangelicals did at the ballot box in November 2016. This much Jones got right. For in voting for Trump nearly all anchor points of Evangelical faith were compromised. Another way to say this is to note that for Evangelicals the character of politicians has always mattered more than anything else. Their preference in candidates has always been for "family men," for people who have earned respect for becoming successful on their merits, and for men or women who uphold values that serve to unify the community around healthy morals. At least until Rex Tillerson and Robert Gates wrecked the organization by turning it into a recruiting ground for homosexuals, you could compare Evangelicals to Boy Scouts. Lots of accomplishment, dedication to high ideals, and no funny stuff. You always knew what you were getting. This sets aside inevitable human failings, it sets aside questions about the best kind of education for public service often unaddressed by the Religious Right, and it sidesteps issues like the truth value of science, but otherwise there has always been much to commend. All of that "good" has now been called into question. Here is how Jones outlined the problem, starting with the question: "whether a political leader who committed an immoral act in his or her private life could nonetheless behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public life. Back in 2011, consistent with the “values voter” brand’s insistence on the importance of personal character, only 30% of white evangelical Protestants agreed with this statement. But this year, [2016] 72% of white evangelicals now say they believe a candidate can build a kind of moral wall between his private and public life." In other words, not that long ago Evangelicals were the most concerned of any voters about a candidate's character -especially his (or her) moral behavior. Now, for 2017 anyway, Evangelicals have become the least concerned. We have come a long way from the William Clinton years when his sexual peccadilloes were a burning issue among Christian believers. The new attitude toward extramarital sex and other "sins of the flesh" seems to have become: "So what?" There are reasons for this shift. Jones, author of the 2016 book, The End of White Christian America, points out that this was the "first presidential election in which white Christians find themselves clearly in the demographic minority: 43% today, down from 54% in 2008 and right at the tipping point in 2012." These numbers should not be taken as definitive, however, again for the reason that about half of all Hispanics think of themselves as white. In the past the Italians were in a similar category and today no-one has any questions whatsoever about their Caucasian status. Given the high rates of conversion to Pentecostalism or related forms of Evangelical religion, what may be happening is a transition to new type of demographic accounting -of necessity. It has not taken place yet for the simple reason that with Democratic control of the White House for eight years and a press that wanted to present Democratic views as normative, it has been in the perceived self interest of the Left to promote the idea that not only are Hispanics a solidly Democratic voting bloc now, they will be in the future. Except that Obama was an anomaly. And he did next-to-nothing to advance Hispanic interests. Republican hard line opposition to out-of-control illegal immigration has propelled Hispanics in a direction they might not have gone otherwise. That is, given the "family values" inclination of most of this population, their 40+% vote for George W. Bush may actually be what is "normal." Especially if large numbers are eventually considered as "white" and those with brownish skins become more successful and discover that their economic self interests align with conservatives. Leftists don't seem to be very good with numbers. Which would be really great news for Right-wingers except that they also cook the books when it suits them, as some sheepishly admit when forced by circumstances. The question that this discussion raises is whether Evangelicals can regain their moral credibility. One view, and it is important because the publication is important, is that the issue is in serious doubt. This refers to an article in the December 12, 2016 edition of the Christian Post by Samuel Smith. It is entitled "_Joni Eareckson Tada: Christians Are Giving Up, Enabling Culture _ (http://www.christianpost.com/news/joni-eareckson-tada-christians-are-giving-up-enabling-culture-to-be-worse-interview-172044/) to Be Worse." the message is simple: Christians are giving up the fight over social values, basically caving in, conceding the field to the Left. To the extent this is true, which may be far more than most believers feel like acknowledging, the problem is far greater that some sort of need to double down on past verities. Christian morality, now shown to be susceptible to expediency, has to be dramatically rethought. The Christian Post is an excellent source of information about such issues. However, the newspaper, the largest Evangelical publication of its type, is a mess. Be forewarned. Every gimmick imaginable is made use of to boost ad revenue -like audio bursting into your ears to hawk products or really annoying pop ups- and recently the paper no longer allows you to copy any of its text. While you can send links to social media sites, this presumes that everyone is part of that scene, which many people are not, and in any case, there is a deeper matter. You would think that a Christian publication would want to disseminate its message far and wide, to everyone conceivable. After all, much of the information it provides is available nowhere else, and often is important, like news of persecution of Christians throughout the Muslim world and in some parts of India. And there is a distinctly Christian perspective on US politics that is a real service to readers because of its concern with basic human decency. And the Post, in the past, even tried to make copying its articles easy for readers. Not any more. One can only suspect that the publisher has been listening to hip, "with it," Evangelical kids who, alas, are as much creatures of Popular Culture as most of the population. In any case, for quality reporting the Post provides a much needed service; in terms of format and concern for the experience of its readers, the Post is now an complete disaster. There also are limitations to the Christian point-of-view that have been a problem from the beginning, or ever since I became a regular visitor to the site a decade ago. In reference to the article, the main concern is that Evangelicals are slipping away from "what is biblically right." Which certainly should be a concern for Christians But are Christian Post positions on issues invariably in line with the teachings of the Bible? The best anyone can say is "usually," but there are some glaring exceptions, especially the editors' poor understanding of the Holy Book's testimony against sodomy and the tendency to interpret such issues as immigration simplistically, as if the Bible really says what cultural conformists wish it said. That is, the paper is guilty, in many instances, of exactly what Joni Tada warns readers is true of the Evangelical population at large. Another interpretation of the "lost culture war" can be found in a Darrell Bock article published at First Things for November 29, 2016, under the title "Recalibrating the Culture War in 2016." Yes, Trump won the election but that is no cause for complacency, indeed, all that happened was that Christians got a reprieve from a serious demographic problem, which is simultaneously a crisis of faith. As the article put it: "There is no moral majority awaiting conservative moral leadership... Our 'victory' will be deceiving if we do not attend to all that is going on." In the past, as recently as the George W. Bush years, the Religious Right was willing to make the whole conservative agenda its own, including the simple-minded rantings of Grover Norquist to the effect that all you need to know is that tax cuts solve every problem. Those days are dead and gone. "Today, that wholesale support does not exist." . "Thus, for the first time in a generation, overwhelming evangelical support for a Republican presidential candidate coexists with significant misgivings and uncertainty about some aspects of the conservative movement." If you were to try and identify the common themes of contemporary religious conservatism the best you could come up with would be something like this- We: "(1) disapprove of any policy changes that divide families through deportation, (2) desire genuine religious freedom across the board as a way to protect the family, and (3) resist generalizations about race as a way to dictate public policy." What is missing? Most of the well known conservative agenda. Although one might add a fourth item to the list, the view that if abortion is outlawed again, that will pretty much solve all social problems -a concept that, objectively, is ridiculous. Should abortion be limited far more than is the case now? Most Americans, not just conservatives, think so. However, is this issue a universal solvent for everything else? But is seems to be the only social values issue that Christians have any stomach for. About almost everything else they are hiding under a rock. To be sure, few if any Evangelicals are unaware that Christian voters cast their ballots in 2016 with many misgivings. Most could be characterized as "the hold-your-nose Trump support." That is, "Evangelicals...were not voting for Trump the man, nor for his agenda. Their support was targeted and strategic." Which, for the most part is new. This targeted voting "suggests an important change in evangelical voting patterns." It has a silver lining, though. It "opens the door for conversation across political divides." Whether we will see any such thing may be questioned; can Christians join in a love fest with Atheists who also are Cultural Marxists? To suggest that this kind of approach has any possibility of actually working in the current political environment is hopelessly naive. And yet this is how Evangelicals want to "play politics." Today's Evangelicals, anyhow. This was less true in the early 2000s, much less true in the Reagan era when organized Evangelicals like Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich proved themselves to be astute leaders who could be politically aggressive when needed. For them politics was a bare knuckled activity, not an occasion to show how nice you were. Christian imperatives were not forgotten -that was the whole point of what they were doing- but politics was not about kindness, it was about winning. And win they did, if you count Reagan's crushing victories in 1980 and 1984 and maybe even George H.W. Bush's win in 1988. However, there was another leader of the movement named Ralph Reed and in the decades since that time Viguerie and Weyrich's example has been increasingly marginalized to be replaced by that of Mr .Reed. The result has been the emasculation of Evangelical politics. Reed, while he directed the Christian Coalition, started in 1992 with a backbone but by the time he quit the organization in 1996 his spine was pretty much a memory, not needed at the time when becoming "respectable" came to dominate his thinking about Christians and politics. The only moral issue that Reed was interested in was abortion; gone were criticisms of homosexuals or other forms of sexual deviancy. Because respectable was all about acceptance by the mainstream. Which, to some extent, actually happened. Reed was featured on the cover of Time magazine. What Reed was all about was a "soft" approach to politics, in stark contrast to Viguerie or Weyrich -or even to James Dobson. Anti-abortion protests, after all, almost always were completely peaceful affairs, often featuring prayers and singing hymns. The media image, based on the example of Operation Rescue with its abortion clinic assaults, so totally misrepresents reality that it could be considered to be a form of libel or slander. There were never more than 23 employees in the organization and the number of people it mobilized in the dozen years it existed was maybe 25,000 -something like .00001% of the Evangelical population of the United States. Mobilizing in opposition to homosexuality was an altogether different matter. What it would have taken to be competitive, let along successful, would have been an altogether different approach than absolute reliance on the Bible. What was essential was research into psychological literature, the literature of criminology, and such areas as medical consequences of homosexuality. Reed never did any such thing and continues to be basically uninformed on the subject, something he has in common with most Evangelicals today. Not knowing much of anything how effective could Reed and the Coalition be? Not very. Which Reed understood quite well. So, instead of taking the time to become informed he took the easy way out, and abandoned the fight. This, for the most part, is the paradigm that modern-day Evangelicals exhibit. Especially since they also understand that they are mostly uncompetitive in the realm of Popular Culture. This being the case, a pietist approach commends itself, that is: Be non-confronational, pull all your punches, interpret the Bible as if the only verses in it are those of the Sermon on the Mount, and turn inward. This is a caricature of pietism, and there can be activist pietism not only 'quietist' pietism, think of some abolitionists in the Civil War era or think of the very Left-in-outlook Quakers of today, but the generalization is true enough. It should also be understood that pietism is compatible with any number of social causes. Thus contemporary Evangelicals, who are far more likely to adopt children of a different race than any other group, also are in the forefront of seeking racial reconciliation, much moreso than militant-minded blacks, for instance, and far more than Left-leaning white gentry. Not that the Left-leaning media sees things this way. It doesn't, it is caught in a time warp where all racial animus most be caused by Right-wingers because that is what their "ideology of oppression" says is true regardless of how false this view now is. There are Rightist hotheads, no-one disputes that. Presumably some are Evangelicals to an extent. The point is that to characterize all Evangelicals this way is simply untruthful: Whether this mischaracterization is perpetrated by the news media, by stand-up know-it-all comedians, or political partisans. But is the best way to compete in the political arena by means of trying to do nothing but good things for others? Maybe that is a pleasant thought but it is like asking football players to win games by being friendly and caring about their opponents on the gridiron. It just ain't gonna happen. The mission of Christians is, said Darrell Bock, "to inspire our neighbors ’ allegiance to a set of ideas that make society better." If he had said that this is the preferred objective that would have been reasonable. But sometimes what is absolutely necessary is to give the other guy a bloody nose or to knock him out of the ring. The song says that you've got to know when to hold' em and when to fold 'em. We can amend this to say that we've got to know when to be kind and generous and when to be a sonovabitch. Politics is like that. Not an evil sonovabitch, but a sonovabitch nonetheless. If "sonovabitch" is too unsavory for your tastes substitute "not afraid of a good fight." And you've got to be calculating, if not at all times under all circumstances, on a regular basis. Politics is about numbers and alliances and deals and allocating resources, and status considerations and how power is wielded. It is a game for people who understand the craft of politics, it manifestly is not for people like Mother Theresa. We "live in a contested environment," added Bock. To heal the wounds of political war we need to make "efforts of grace, reconciliation, and living with and loving one’s neighbor." These are good things, that is hardly debatable. But they are not intrinsic to politics. Some Christians, alas, maybe many Christians, just don't get it -and wonder why "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" worked out so well in the classic movie but doesn't work at all in real life politics. There is a sense of realism that is missing. There is realism in Bock's article, however, and it is valuable. After all, if you have a conscience and are motivated by a higher purpose than greed, maximizing profits, more and more money, self-indulgence, self-promotion, or self-aggrandizement, you may actually want to make the world a better place. Most usually the inspiration for altruistic behavior is religion. This can be Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu or other faith traditions but in America this most often is Christian. As Bock put is, Christians now have an opportunity to take a new look a the culture war and plan to take new actions toward achieving long sought for goals. But the view that "if we get the right people in power we can restore America as a 'Christian nation' " is to chase an impossible dream. And was it ever Biblical? Not really. Still, the "core of the gospel entails seeking engagement with those who are not yet rooted in the gospel." This follows from the great commission in which Jesus told his disciples to go into the world and convince people that a selfless life, even if it is far from perfect, is best for all of us. And how do we achieve that kind of objective? The honest answer is that we do not know at this time. Too much is too uncertain. But what we do know is that we need a new approach, one based on genuine "pursuit of truth" and on finding new ways to relate to others given the fact that this is the 21st century, not some pervious era. First, though, Christians need to acknowledge that this should be their top priority. About that, there is reason to doubt. Especially because the Trump presidency sets the kind of example it does and because large numbers of Evangelicals made compromises of conscience to ensure that he was elected. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RC] The Power of Popular Culture Chapter 4 Donald Trump and Religion
BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Sun, 19 Feb 2017 19:27:07 -0800
