Francois Ntone

From Huffpost – White Evangelicals and Trump

A New Assessment of White Evangelicals as Christians

With the Trump presidency, white evangelicals have come under increased scrutiny regarding their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.  Perhaps there was a time white evangelicals claimed to be the guardians of Christian ethics.  Today, their support of Trump has provided evidence to many that morality matters to them much less than pocket book issues.

I keep coming back to this topic because my website is an attempt to look with clarity at biblical teaching, and New Testament teaching in particular, as I believe that there is no Christianity outside of Christ.  There is a debate today regarding whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God, the God of the Bible.  In reality, while it is legitimate to talk about the God of the Bible, it is important to realize that the Bible does not consistently define God from its initial pages to its last pages.  To pretend that it does is part of the problem associated with implementing the Christian program in the world.  In particular, white evangelicals have certain views of the Bible that necessarily lead to their sometimes questionable choices.

I recently read an article published on June 7 in Christianity Today by Mark Galli, who is editor in chief of the publication.  The title of the article is The Church’s Biggest Challenge in 2017, but Galli added a subtitle: “Let’s get unchurched evangelicals back into church, and prejudiced evangelicals back to the Bible”.  In one of my previous posts, I was somewhat critical of Galli because even though he was calling for Christian unity in the age of Trump, I felt that his reasoning was not careful enough.  But I am glad to refer to his thoughts on white evangelicals here since he is himself a white evangelical.  In the above-mentioned article, he deplores the character flaws displayed by prejudiced white evangelicals, while calling for tolerance and patience towards them.  Though I generally agree with what he is trying to do, I will point out a few items where I have a different perspective.

Galli’s Assessment of the Issue of Prejudice Among White Evangelicals

Galli starts his article with the following words:

“Every week, we are treated to another revelation about the alarming attitudes of white evangelical Christians. You would think that a people steeped in the Bible—which commands and exemplifies concern for refugees and others in dire straits—would find President Trump’s closing the door to the world’s neediest refugees repulsive. But white evangelicals support Trump’s exclusionary policy by a whopping 76 percent.”

On the refugee issue, evangelical leaders have clearly and firmly stated their opposition to the Trump policy.  The statistic quoted by Galli is taken from a recent Pew Research Center survey which also found the following: 81% of Republicans approve of Trump’s refugee policy, while 89% of Democrats oppose it.  Among Protestants, while the overall approval rate is 51%, 76% of white evangelicals, 50% of white mainline and 10% of black Protestants approve of it.  Among Catholics, while the overall approval rate is 36%, 50% of whites and 14% of Hispanics and other minorities approve of it.  Among non-affiliated religious people, the approval rate is 24%.

Of course the fact that Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump’s refugee policy calls into question their claim to adhere to Christian values.  Galli focuses on the survey finding that indicates that conservative white Christians are more likely than other groups to support Trump’s refugee policy.  One reason revealed by the survey is fear of Muslim extremism around the world.  But in that respect, it should also be pointed out that another form of extremism, associated with white supremacy, often finds a home among white conservative Christians.

Galli recognizes that Christians should be aware that they “live moment to moment by sheer mercy”, and should not show prejudice against others.  He therefore denounces the fact that “white evangelical Christians, more than any other religious group, say illegal immigrants should be identified and summarily deported.”   In addition, he points to another survey that, according to him, indicates that economic considerations are the primary reason for their support of Trump, while abortion and religious freedom may be important reasons as well.

A closer look at the second survey mentioned above actually shows a disconnect between white evangelical pastors and their church members.  The pastors ranked personal character of the candidate (27%), Supreme Court nominees (20%), religious freedom (12%) and abortion (10%) as the most important factors in their vote for Trump.  Church members, on the other hand, were more concerned with the economy (26%), national security (22%), personal character of the candidate (15%) and Supreme Court nominees (10%).  It was also pointed out that despite their great concern for the economy, “the median household income for Trump’s non-Hispanic white supporters was about $72,000, or $10,000 higher than that of all non-Hispanic whites.”  In other words, white voters who supported Trump were still economically more comfortable than other groups.  However, they tended to be angrier as they saw a drop in their living standards, while groups which, historically, have had to make do with much less, do not react with similar anger.

The survey also points to a high level of fear of terrorism among white evangelicals.  Galli sees a connection between that factor and attitudes of “fearmongering and sheer prejudice”, which to him are the result of character flaws among evangelical believers.  As he puts it,

“For various reasons, here’s the picture clearly emerging in the public eye: White evangelical Christians are deeply resentful of Mexicans, Muslims, and non-whites in general. Meanwhile, evangelical Christians who don’t fit this description wonder: What is wrong with these evangelicals? Who’s teaching them these unmerciful attitudes?”

Galli believes the teaching of the church is not to blame for these attitudes.  However, he refers to different studies that contradict each other in that regard.  He quotes political scientist Geoffrey Layman who wrote in the Washington Post that evangelicals who attend church infrequently tend to have more negative attitudes towards Muslims, Hispanics and blacks.  This of course implies that these evangelicals are misguided because they have not taken advantage of the available, proper Christian education offered to them.  But Galli also refers to a more recent Pew Research Center study from April 2017 whose title is quite telling: Among white evangelicals, regular churchgoers are the most supportive of Trump.  Obviously that suggests that the negative attitudes displayed by some white evangelicals are not simply the result of their poor grasp of the teaching of their churches.

Galli’s Proposed Solution

Galli suggests that surveys may not provide a full picture, and that one may collect more useful information by talking to individuals.  As an example, he once asked a young black evangelical who voted for Trump the reason for his choice.  The young man answered: “Trump has said some terrible things about blacks and Hispanics—I reject all that. I voted for him because I believe he can improve the economy.”

Galli seems to accept the young man’s answer, considering it a lot better than voting for Trump out of prejudice against non-whites.  I suppose a lot of people would agree with such an assessment.  But is a true follower of Christ expected to say that money is more important than justice and fairness for all?  As I recall, Jesus expects his followers to store up treasures in heaven rather than on earth (Matthew 6:19-21), and tells them they cannot serve both God and Money (Matthew 6:24).  A true Christian is expected to make an honest living, but is not expected to sacrifice principle for economic reasons.  And by the way, the fact that the answer above was given by a black man does not make it a Christian answer.

The statements made by Trump were a threat against the well-being of some segments of the population he happens to dislike.  Furthermore, while those who hate Obama refuse to recognize that the economy improved under him, it is difficult to argue that the economy on Election Day was so disastrous that Christians found themselves forced to vote for a person they found morally repulsive.  The problem is that in recent decades, improvements in the economy have mostly benefited the rich and inequities have increased.  White evangelicals just happen to have, to some extent, joined the ranks of the forgotten, and some of them seem to find pleasure in blaming others for their misfortune.

Regarding white evangelicals who are prejudiced against minorities, Galli makes the following statement:

“In fact, prejudiced evangelicals are cause not for rejection but love that goes the extra mile. If they are believers who don’t go to church, the first step might be to invite them back. If they are already in church, they are ripe for discipleship. Go therefore and teach them to observe all things whatsoever our Lord has commanded us—which includes the love of the neighbor, who is often someone we’re tempted to despise (as in the parable of the Good Samaritan). In most cases, pastoral patience and care is needed; in others, church discipline that leads to repentance. But in either case love, not shame or rejection, has to win the day.”

I truly commend Galli for writing this.  In particular, I am elated by his emphasis on observing “all things whatsoever our Lord has commanded us.”  And he is just as correct when he urges those who are to undertake the task of educating the prejudiced to remain humble in recognition of their own sinfulness:

“We demonstrate our deepest intentions for discipling others by honestly confessing our own faults when pointed out, joining all in seeking God’s mercy. In this way, we will all grow up into the full stature of Christ (Eph. 4:13), becoming by God’s grace, a people who act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8).”

This warning is especially significant to me since, with this website, I took on the mission of correcting what I consider as fallacies in Christian teaching.  I realize that I may be perceived as arrogant by some, but I hope that most of the time I am able to express my thoughts with sufficient clarity and without the need to be insulting.  At any rate, I do intend to continue in my endeavor, hoping that my contributions will do some good, no matter how small.  As a matter of fact, in the next section, I am going to explain why I am not in complete agreement with Galli regarding the fact that the teaching of evangelical churches made no contribution to the attitude of prejudiced evangelicals.

Does the Teaching of Evangelical Churches Contribute to Prejudice?

As mentioned above, Galli raised the question “What is wrong with these evangelicals? Who’s teaching them these unmerciful attitudes?”  His answer is “Not necessarily the church.”  I am not going to argue that evangelical churches promote prejudice through their teaching.  But I will make the following observation: white hate groups tend to identify with white conservative churches.  Is there anything about the teaching of these churches that lends itself to this identification?

White conservative churches include evangelical churches and fundamentalist churches.  They have in common certain views about the Bible, certain propositions they hold as fundamental to biblical interpretation.  In particular, they believe that the Bible is very literally God’s word, and that all parts of it have equal weight, equal relevance to Christians today.  They can even sound convincing about it, urging acceptance of the Bible in its totality, and questioning those who use it selectively and tend to arbitrarily emphasize some parts over other parts.  As I pointed out in my last post, some of them may go as far as questioning the idea that Jesus’ words carry more weight than other parts of the Bible.

It is my contention that this approach to the Bible, by its nature, lends itself to misuse by those who want to justify their prejudices.  Galli referred to Jesus’ Great Commission:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

The reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is in itself a reminder of a new understanding of God’s character in the age ushered in by Christ.  The merciful Father of Christ, who can forgive those who crucified his only Son, is certainly not, in character, the same as Moses’ Yahweh who insists on the extermination of the Midianites (Numbers 31).  Moreover, the Great Commission is about obeying everything taught by Christ, not every detail found in the Bible.  Those who advocate equal treatment of all parts of the Bible would argue that the Old Testament has complete authority on matters not explicitly covered by Jesus, even if Old Testament teaching on such matters seems to conflict with the principles put forth in the New Testament.  This conservative view of the Bible was very useful, as I discussed in my last post, to those who wanted to find biblical justification for slavery.  That raises the suspicion of an agenda behind the assumptions for biblical interpretation proposed by conservative readers of the Bible who may have been motivated by a need to preserve their way of life, even though that way of life was at odds with New Testament teaching.

A careful reading of the Bible makes it obvious that biblical theology evolves in time.  In the days of King David, the God of Israel, previously described as a warrior by Moses (Exodus 15:3), now finds repulsive the idea that a warrior king such as David would want to build his temple:

“My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God.  But this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars.  You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight.  But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side.  His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign.  He is the one who will build a house for my Name.  He will be my son, and I will be his father.  And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’” (1 Chronicles 22:7-10)

Obviously if we believe that God is unchanging, then we must assume that the difference between Moses and David is an indication that human understanding of God is changing in time.  And if we believe that the Law and the Prophets point to Christ as the final destination of the biblical journey, then our ethics must come from Christ, and we will accept Old Testament ethical teaching only when it is consistent with Christ’s teaching.  There is nothing arbitrary about that.  To the accusation that I am selective in my acceptance of the Bible, I will respond that the conservative approach conveniently navigates back and forth between the Old Testament and the things that Christ taught us, in order to fit the agenda of those who promote it.  They will not hesitate to ignore guidelines from Jesus if they can find somewhere else material that supports their agenda. That is not Christianity.  It should be called something else.  I take it for granted that educated evangelicals like Galli know enough about the Bible to see that Christ is the one who really matters to a true Christian.  It seems to me that many white evangelicals do not have that understanding.