Changes in Evangelical Christianity and its involvement in politics

Context

I have a deep concern for the future of American democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and social respect for facts and truth. I see a non-trivial possibility of the rise of an authoritarian American state with politics akin to fascism. The 2022 and 2024 elections should shed light on what direction American is likely to go in. Democracy does fall to  recently passed Republican Party vote suppression and election rigging laws in at least 17 states. If that happens, authoritarianism could rise. In that scenario, the American experiment would have ended, probably for a very long time. 

Two forces seem to be the key drivers of the rise of radical right authoritarianism in the modern Republican Party. One is special interest money working in the name of laissez-faire capitalism and unregulated markets. Those politics usually operate at the expense of the public interest, including the environment. That political force has been around at least since the mid to late 1800s. Lately, it has come to significantly control the GOP. 

The other is the rise of radical right evangelical fundamentalist Christian nationalism. That is a more recent source of influence in the GOP. Its modern origin arguably arose primarily with the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education that desegregated public schools and the fall of Jim Crow laws in the 1960s after federal voting and civil rights laws were passed. Those events enraged many religious conservatives and they are still enraged today. They were galvanized against the precipitating events and started to involve conservative Christianity directly in politics. 

The backlash against Christian nationalism

Today, there is a backlash within the political Evangelical Christian movement. Most young people are leaving it, often at least partly because they dislike church involvement in politics. They appear to see conservative political Christianity as a perversion of Christianity and Christian teachings and morals. An Oct. 24, 2021 article in The Atlantic, The Evangelical Church is Breaking Apart, describes what is happening. If too many young people leave the religious conservative movement, its power in the GOP might wane to a point where it is no longer a major force in the party or a major threat to democracy. The Atlantic writes:

The election of the elders of an evangelical church is usually an uncontroversial, even unifying event. But this summer, at an influential megachurch in Northern Virginia, something went badly wrong. A trio of elders didn’t receive 75 percent of the vote, the threshold necessary to be installed.

“A small group of people, inside and outside this church, coordinated a divisive effort to use disinformation in order to persuade others to vote these men down as part of a broader effort to take control of this church,” David Platt, a 43-year-old minister at McLean Bible Church and a best-selling author, charged in a July 4 sermon.

Platt said church members had been misled, having been told, among other things, that the three individuals nominated to be elders would advocate selling the church building to Muslims, who would convert it into a mosque. In a second vote on July 18, all three nominees cleared the threshold. But that hardly resolved the conflict. Members of the church filed a lawsuit, claiming that the conduct of the election violated the church’s constitution.

Platt, who is theologically conservative, had been accused in the months before the vote by a small but zealous group within his church of “wokeness” and being “left of center,” of pushing a “social justice” agenda and promoting critical race theory, and of attempting to “purge conservative members.” A Facebook page and a right-wing website have targeted Platt and his leadership. For his part, Platt, speaking to his congregation, described an email that was circulated claiming, “MBC is no longer McLean Bible Church, that it’s now Melanin Bible Church.”

What happened at McLean Bible Church is happening all over the evangelical world. Influential figures such as the theologian Russell Moore and the Bible teacher Beth Moore felt compelled to leave the Southern Baptist Convention; both were targeted by right-wing elements within the SBC.

“The divisions and conflicts we found are intense, easily more intense than I have seen in my 25 years of studying the topic,” he [a religious sociologist researcher] told me. What this adds up to, he said, is “an emerging day of reckoning within churches.”

The root of the discord lies in the fact that many Christians have embraced the worst aspects of our culture and our politics. When the Christian faith is politicized, churches become repositories not of grace but of grievances, places where tribal identities are reinforced, where fears are nurtured, and where aggression and nastiness are sacralized. The result is not only wounding the nation; it’s having a devastating impact on the Christian faith.

The first step was the cultivation of the idea within the religious right that certain political positions were deeply Christian, according to [historian George] Marsden. Still, such claims were not at all unprecedented in American history. Through the 2000s, even though the religious right drew its energy from the culture wars—as it had for decades—it abided by some civil restraints. Then came Donald Trump.

“When Trump was able to add open hatred and resentments to the political-religious stance of ‘true believers,’ it crossed a line,” Marsden said. “Tribal instincts seem to have become overwhelming.” The dominance of political religion over professed religion is seen in how, for many, the loyalty to Trump became a blind allegiance. The result is that many Christian followers of Trump “have come to see a gospel of hatreds, resentments, vilifications, put-downs, and insults as expressions of their Christianity, for which they too should be willing to fight.”

“What we’re seeing is massive discipleship failure caused by massive catechesis failure,” James Ernest, the vice president and editor in chief at Eerdmans, a publisher of religious books, told me. Ernest was one of several figures I spoke with who pointed to catechism, the process of instructing and informing people through teaching, as the source of the problem. “The evangelical Church in the U.S. over the last five decades has failed to form its adherents into disciples. So there is a great hollowness. All that was needed to cause the implosion that we have seen was a sufficiently provocative stimulus. And that stimulus came.”

But when people’s values are shaped by the media they consume, rather than by their religious leaders and communities, that has consequences. “What all those media want is engagement, and engagement is most reliably driven by anger and hatred,” Jacobs argued. “They make bank when we hate each other. And so that hatred migrates into the Church, which doesn’t have the resources to resist it.”

Scott Dudley, the senior pastor at Bellevue Presbyterian Church in Bellevue, Washington, refers to this as “our idolatry of politics.” He’s heard of many congregants leaving their church because it didn’t match their politics, he told me, but has never once heard of someone changing their politics because it didn’t match their church’s teaching.

The article goes on to discuss interviews with pastors who see the problem. One historian points out that Trump did not appear out of no where. She argues that Trump represents the fulfillment, not the betrayal, of many of white evangelicals’ most deeply held values. American evangelicals worked for decades to replace the Jesus of the Gospels with an idol of rugged masculinity and Christian nationalism. She defines Christian nationalism as “the belief that America is God’s chosen nation and must be defended as such.” That attitude which is a good predictor of attitudes toward things like immigration, race, guns and non-Christians. 

One expert asserts that the former president normalized discourse shocking rhetoric. He asserts that the “pugilism of the Trump era, in which anything short of cruelty is seen as weakness.” The problem facing the evangelical Church, then, is not just that it has failed to inculcate adherents with its values—it’s that when it has succeeded in doing so, those values have not always been biblical.

Some have resigned and some left the ministry entirely. Many Evangelical churches have become a hostile environment. Insufficiently incorrect pastors are slandered and demeaned by disrespectful and angry congregants. In some cases, organized groups of congregants demand firing of insufficiently correctly political pastors. These politicized Evangelicals tend to be more driven by political agendas than spiritual matters.

USA Today writes:

Division is causing people to abandon Christian churches. Last year, Barna found that the share of practicing Christians has dropped nearly in half since 2000. Gallup recently reported that U.S. church membership fell below 50% for the first time in eight decades.

But how many are leaving political Christian nationalism and how fast are they going? FiveThirtyEight writes in an article entitled The nones are growing, but it’s hard to know exactly how many there are:

By nearly all measures, the nones now represent at least a fifth of all American adults, rivaling Catholics and evangelical Christians as the nation’s largest cohort in terms of religious faith (or lack thereof). They are the fastest-growing religious/nonreligious cohort — the nones went from 12 percent of American adults in 1998 to 16 percent in 2008, to 24 percent in 2018, according to data from the General Social Survey. Gallup puts this group at about 21 percent. Pew Research Center says 26 percent. The Cooperative Election Study suggests their ranks are even larger, at about 32 percent.  

Part of that decline is about young people — elderly members of these denominations [mainline Protestant churches and Catholicism] who die are not being replaced by a younger cohort. But older people are now increasingly shifting from Christian to unaffiliated too — particularly older people who lean left politically. As a result, mainline Christianity is not only declining but becoming more conservative. Between 2008 and 2018, three of the largest mainline traditions (the United Methodists, the Episcopalians and the United Church of Christ) all became more Republican.

It’s fair to say that both the mainline and evangelical traditions in the United States are losing members. But that seems to be happening a bit asymmetrically. Evangelicalism is undoubtedly down from its peak in the early 1990s. But it’s reached a bit of a stasis in recent years, being buoyed by some inflows from the mainline tradition and enough younger families to offset some of the losses through death.

Questions: 

1. Is it reasonable to believe that conservative, political Christian nationalist fundamentalism is going to decrease such that the threat to democracy and the rule of law recedes before some form of radical right authoritarianism with staying power is installed by the GOP? Or, is it too early to predict?

2. Does the political Evangelical rhetoric The Atlantic article quoted sound or look a lot or exactly like standard post-Trump Republican Party rhetoric, talking points and behaviors?

America's commercial future?

The New York Times hypothesizes about what the consumer commercial landscape will look like in 2041:

Starbucks, whose longtime chief executive Howard Schultz pioneered a new wave of liberal corporate activism in the early part of the century, still dominates the coffee scene in college towns and blue-state urban centers. But Black Rifle Coffee, now publicly traded with a $250 billion valuation, is flourishing in suburbs across the country and in cities large and small across the Deep South and Mountain West.

Online, the partisan rift is equally wide. Facebook has become essentially a one-party site, a forum for conservatives — and occasionally for conspiracy theorists — to discuss the perils of immigration and excessive government regulation. Snapchat has become the go-to social network for liberals to share videos calling for voting reform and raising taxes for social programs.

“This is permanently part of the social context of business,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale’s School of Management who has helped chief executives formulate their responses to hot-button issues. “It’s the job of C.E.O.s to elevate issues and explain how it matters to them.”

Yet for the most part, corporations did their best to steer clear of the culture wars.

The 2016 election of Donald J. Trump changed all that. Mr. Trump’s positions on issues ranging from immigration to race relations to climate change forced companies to make their positions clear. Oftentimes, under pressure from employees and customers, corporations broke with the president. After Mr. Trump equivocated in his response to an outburst of white nationalist violence in Charlottesville, Va., for example, two advisory councils stacked with prominent business leaders disbanded, with many of them repudiating the president and his response.

More than four years of this dynamic finally led many senior Republicans to begin pushing back against big business. This year, as companies rallied against restrictive new voting laws being advanced by Republicans around the country, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told chief executives to stay in their lane.

“My warning, if you will, to corporate America is to stay out of politics,” he said in April. “It’s not what you’re designed for. And don’t be intimidated by the left into taking up causes that put you right in the middle of America’s greatest political debates.”

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida posted a video in which he called companies speaking out against Republican laws “woke corporate hypocrites.”

And Stephen Miller, an adviser to Mr. Trump, said on Twitter that big businesses were “openly attacking sovereign U.S. states & the right of their citizens to secure their own elections,” in what he called “a corporate ambush on Democracy.”  

John Schnatter, the founder of Papa John’s International, was ousted from the pizza chain he founded after uttering a racial slur on a corporate conference call. He recently called his exit from the company he started “a crucifixion,” blaming the “progressive elite left” for his downfall.

The hypocrite pot calling the kettle black

Rubio calls companies that speak out woke corporate hypocrites if they speak against bad things the authoritarian GOP does. The hypocrite is the Rubio and the rest of the GOP leadership, not corporations that speak out. Remember, it was the GOP that gave corporations free speech rights, calls them people, calls campaign contributions free speech and coddles them with tax breaks and deregulations that aid in profits and/or disadvantage consumers. 

Republican hypocrisy here is unlimited and shameless.

Even more ghastly in the hypocrisy and lies department is McConnell’s warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics because it’s not what corporations are designed for. Like hell corporations aren't designed for politics. They have been doing politics for decades, but just in private and secrecy. What in tarnation does McConnell think corporate lobbyists who secretly lobby himself and other Republicans (and Democrats) in congress are doing? They are demanding their quid pro quo return on investment for their campaign contribution participation in pay-to-play politics. That's called politics whether the public knows about it or not.

Equal to McConnells hypocrisy and lies is Miller’s assertion that criticism of GOP voter suppression and election rigging laws amounts to a corporate ambush on Democracy. The GOP is ambushing democracy, not corporate critics of the ambush.

The shamelessness is just breathtaking. 

How likely that the hypothesis will turn out to be about right is unclear. Probably unlikely. Companies are quietly backing off from the little spate of criticism after the 1/6 coup attempt. They are quietly reopening the campaign contribution taps to Republican authoritarians all over the country. The spasm of corporate social conscience has subsided in view of how incredibly deregulated and profitable it will be to help authoritarian Republican politicians finish ambushing and killing democracy.

Or, is that assessment of corporate morals, or lack thereof, too harsh and unreasonably inaccurate?

Boycott Papa John's!

A coordinated corporate attack on the free press

The Atlantic writes in an article entitled A Secretive Hedge Fund is Gutting Newsrooms about the intentional killing of local newspapers for profit and maybe other things. The article starts with a description of the Chicago Tribune's headquarters, which was completed in 1925. The tribune tower was a magnificent building designed by the best architects of the times. The Atlantic writes:

To find the paper’s current headquarters one afternoon in late June, I took a cab across town to an industrial block west of the river. After a long walk down a windowless hallway lined with cinder-block walls, I got in an elevator, which deposited me near a modest bank of desks near the printing press. The scene was somehow even grimmer than I’d imagined. Here was one of America’s most storied newspapers—a publication that had endorsed Abraham Lincoln and scooped the Treaty of Versailles, that had toppled political bosses and tangled with crooked mayors and collected dozens of Pulitzer Prizes—reduced to a newsroom the size of a Chipotle.

Spend some time around the shell-shocked journalists at the Tribune these days, and you’ll hear the same question over and over: How did it come to this? On the surface, the answer might seem obvious. Craigslist killed the Classified section, Google and Facebook swallowed up the ad market, and a procession of hapless newspaper owners failed to adapt to the digital-media age, making obsolescence inevitable. This is the story we’ve been telling for decades about the dying local-news industry, and it’s not without truth. But what’s happening in Chicago is different.

In May, the Tribune was acquired by Alden Global Capital, a secretive hedge fund that has quickly, and with remarkable ease, become one of the largest newspaper operators in the country. The new owners did not fly to Chicago to address the staff, nor did they bother with paeans to the vital civic role of journalism. Instead, they gutted the place.  

[Alden's two founders] are also defined by an obsessive secrecy. Alden’s website contains no information beyond the firm’s name, and its list of investors is kept strictly confidential. When lawmakers pressed for details last year on who funds Alden, the company replied that “there may be certain legal entities and organizational structures formed outside of the United States.”

The Atlantic goes to note that two days after Alden took control of the Tribune, it announced a round of employee buyouts that caused an exodus of journalists. Alden's corporate bloodletting got rid of the Metro columnist who reported on the problems that occupants of a messed up public-housing complex faced. The editor who maintained a homicide database that the police couldn’t manipulate was also pushed out. A quarter of the newsroom was eliminated. Major stories were no longer covered, including stories of corrupt politicians trying to sleaze their way out of legal troubles. Employee moral dropped and more professionals at the paper just gave up and resigned. 

For it’s part, Alden refuses to talk about what it had done or why. A former Tribune reporter commented that the Tribune was dying not because it could not stay alive. Instead, Alden was intentionally killing it: “They call Alden a vulture hedge fund, and I think that’s honestly a misnomer. A vulture doesn’t hold a wounded animal’s head underwater. This is predatory.” 

This was not something new for Alden. After the great recession, the hedge fund started buying newspapers and then later quietly gutted them. The point was profit. Alden’s business model was ruthless and directly on point. Gut the staff, sell the real estate, increase subscription prices, and wring out as much cash as possible before allowing the business to collapse. 

The Atlantic notes that in the past 15 years, more than a quarter of American newspapers have gone out of business. The survivors are smaller, weaker, and generally vulnerable to acquisition. Financial firms now control about half of all daily newspapers, according to an analysis by the Financial Times. That is likely to increase.

Randall Smith and Heath Freeman, the co-founders of Alden Global Capital devised and implemented the business model. They have been purely mercenary, with no interest in even pretending to care about their publications’ long-term vitality or service to the public interest. With this model, the newspapers can be profitable for a number of years before the business collapses.

Randall Smith

Heath Freeman -- claims he wants to save 

local news reporting (no one believes him)

The Atlantic comments on the consequences of the demise of local newspapers:

This investment strategy does not come without social consequences. When a local newspaper vanishes, research shows, it tends to correspond with lower voter turnout, increased polarization, and a general erosion of civic engagement. Misinformation proliferates. City budgets balloon, along with corruption and dysfunction. The consequences can influence national politics as well; an analysis by Politico found that Donald Trump performed best during the 2016 election in places with limited access to local news.

For laissez-faire capitalism and corrupt and/or authoritarian politics, it is undeniably important to control public information. It is thus easy to see why targeting and killing newspapers while profiting in the process would appealing to both corporations and politicians. Bad news gets suppressed, the public remains ignorant and plausible deniability for everything gets to run about as free and wild as unregulated markets and corrupt governments can devise.

The article is long and goes into details of how some local newspapers crumbled under the dead weight of Alden and, as one burned out reporter called them, “the lizard people” who control Alden. 

 

Questions: 

1. It is clear that both big corporations and dictatorship governments have things to hide and would thus would have a keen interest in seeing the corruption of US journalism into a gigantic sham. Therefore, is it reasonable to think that foreign enemies such as the Russian and Chinese governments are among the “certain legal entities and organizational structures formed outside of the United States” that invest in Alden? 

2. Is it reasonable to see what Alden is doing as inherently authoritarian, e.g., because the public becomes less informed and plausible deniability for crimes and fascism easier to deny in the absence of contrary information?

3. Would it be legal or illegal for a politician, billionaire, political party or corporation to secretly invest in Alden, and then ask it to kill a troublesome newspaper? After all, it’s just a business investment. [Seems legal to me.]

Gerrymandering is ending free and fair elections

Not peaceful tourists not peacefully visiting a popular scenic site on 1/6/21

The New York Times writes in an article entitled, G.O.P. Cements Hold on Legislatures in Battleground States:

Democrats were once able to count on wave elections to win back key statehouses. Republican gerrymandering is making that all but impossible.

Republicans are locking in newly gerrymandered maps for the legislatures in four battleground states that are set to secure the party’s control in the statehouse chambers over the next decade, fortifying the G.O.P. against even the most sweeping potential Democratic wave elections.

In Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Georgia, Republican state lawmakers have either created supermajorities capable of overriding a governor’s veto or whittled down competitive districts so significantly that Republicans’ advantage is virtually impenetrable — leaving voters in narrowly divided states powerless to change the leadership of their legislatures.

Although much of the attention on this year’s redistricting process has focused on gerrymandered congressional maps, the new maps being drafted in state legislatures have been just as distorted.

And statehouses have taken on towering importance: With the federal government gridlocked, these legislatures now serve as the country’s policy laboratory, crafting bills on abortion, guns, voting restrictions and other issues that shape the national political debate.

“This is not your founding fathers’ gerrymander,” said Chris Lamar, a senior legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center who focuses on redistricting. “This is something more intense and durable and permanent.”

This redistricting cycle, the first one in a decade, builds on a political trend that accelerated in 2011, when Republicans in swing states including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan drew highly gerrymandered state legislative maps.

Since those maps were enacted, Republicans have held both houses of state government in all three places for the entire decade. They never lost control of a single chamber, even as Democrats won some of the states’ races for president, governor and Senate.  

Gerrymandering is a tool used by both parties in swing states as well as less competitive ones. Democrats in deep-blue states like Illinois are moving to increase their advantage in legislatures, and Republicans in deep-red states like Utah and Idaho are doing the same.  

As Democratic voters have crowded into cities and commuter suburbs, and voters in rural and exurban areas have grown increasingly Republican, G.O.P. mapmakers say that they risk running afoul of other redistricting criteria if they split up those densely populated Democratic areas across multiple state legislative districts.

“What you see is reflective of the more even distribution of Republican and right-leaning voters across wider geographic areas,” said Adam Kincaid, the director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. Trying to draw more competitive legislative districts, he said, would result in “just a lot of squiggly lines.” 

Republicans in the Texas Legislature, however, say that the state’s maps are a fair representation of voters, and that if any districts are unfair, it is largely the result of incumbents on both sides protecting themselves. 

“Incumbents generally get to draw their own maps, so that’s how it’s done — it’s each member being able to draw it for their re-election,” said Briscoe Cain, a Republican state representative from the Houston area. “It’s a big state, we’ve got many regions and cultures. I believe the Texas House reflects those distinctions.”  

In Ohio and North Carolina, however, Republicans are taking a forceful tack. By keeping some districts moderately competitive, they are taking more risks in an attempt to create significant majorities or supermajorities — and in doing so, they are often flouting laws or court decisions.

In Ohio, after Republicans drew themselves supermajorities in both the State House and Senate in 2011, voters approved a ballot initiative creating a bipartisan commission to draw the maps and dictating that “no district plan should be drawn to favor or disfavor a political party.”

But this year, Ohio Republicans ignored the commission, creating a House map that favors roughly 67 percent of G.O.P. seats and a Senate map that gives Republicans an advantage in roughly 69 percent of districts, preserving supermajorities.  

Republicans are “willing to be a bit more aggressive in a state like Ohio and in North Carolina,” said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice. “They’re daring the courts to strike them down.”

Yes, Democrats gerrymander too. But not in California. But it appears that nationally, Democrats have lost the battle in the war to save democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. They are losing the war. There is no obvious reason to believe that more than a trivial few, if any, pro-authoritarian voters are going to change their minds in any state, red, blue or whatever.

Republicans argue their advantage and thus moral and political justification lies in larger geographic areas. They have to argue that because they lose in terms of larger populations in smaller areas. They have no choice. For Republicans, power, not population or public opinion counts. That is authoritarianism, not democracy.

The libertarian and Republican brands of authoritarianism hold that property rights, including land area, trump human being rights and well-being. One acre or one million dollar asset gets one vote, but no acres or million dollar assets get ~0.7 vote, or something about like that. Maybe that is the modern equivalent of the old 3/5 vote for slaves back in the bitterly fought and still unresolved fight for a Constitution in the late 1770s. 

Questions: 

1. Is it reasonably fact and reason-based to believe that on the national level the 2022 elections and thereafter will probably (>50% chance) be no longer be a matter of one person one vote, but instead the Republican party and its more than one vote per person will prevail on the national level?

2. Is it plausible to believe that the radical right Republican Supreme Court, which is already hostile to free and fair elections, will intervene to defend the one person, one vote concept?