A friend wrote in to ask this question, and I wonder how you would answer the question: So, why is it that Conservative Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalists are the most apt to? · Be anti-vaxxers · Be complementarian · Vote Republican regardless of the nominee
Admittedly overly simplistic answer here (since otherwise I’d write an entirely too long post):
1. Fear (of getting it “wrong,” of being “unsafe,” of being disloyal (to the Constitution and flag), of eternal conscious torment in hell, etc.) If there’s one thing consistent amongst fundamentalists of all stripes, it’s fear.
2. As Oz Guinness describes in A CASE FOR CIVILITY, they have romanticized the past, and radicalized the present in an effort to “make America great again” (my inserted analogy) without realizing it was never great (from a Christlike perspective) in the first place. Which leads to what I think is the biggest issue:
3. Because they have effectively constructed a version of Christianity without anything remotely reflecting the life and teaching of Jesus.
I agree that fear is a big factor. I was listening to a podcast where the two hosts described how they were introduced, the specific tradition and message, to Christianity. One host stated regarding the tradition he inherited (evangelical if not fully fundamentalist), "There was so much fear and anxiety, that we would have never explored another religious tradition...it (his tradition) was quite insecure...". He goes on to say the doctrines produced an insecure faith. "Like I was not secure in my relationship with God." He was "viewing the faith through the 'sinner's' prayer...'your a sinner, and this is the solution to your sin'." The other host, a former atheist, was introduced to Christianity more through an experience, Julia of Norwich, and the '"language of love." Those introductions to the faith, and emphasis in each, greatly impacted how they saw God, the faith, etc....
Folks, this was a civil conversation with disagreement clear -- reminds me of the One T Saloon back in the old days on Jesus Creed. Thanks so much John and Zach.
I grew up in fundamentalism. I understand its power. It is, in the word of sociologist Max Weber, that "the sacred is uniquely unalterable." What folks are told is from GOD (or is the proper interpretation of God's Word) cannot be questioned or changed in any way. This provides the ground for any and every crazy thing a leader wants to attach to it. Deacon Godsey is right: it's all about fear. It is as Peter Murphy put it, "we have the truth" and to dare to question it is to put one on the slippery road to error. David Lipscomb questions that we're dealing with a specifically fundamentalist teaching, that other groups may embrace similar litanies. True, but the issue is how anything is taught. Any teaching someone embraces will become unalterable if once the word is "from God." The fundamentalism in which I was reared did precisely that.
Having travelled through Christian communities prone as they are to fall for conspiracy theories, etc., I feel as though there are two vital components to the responses that we see from these communities as listed in this morning's brief: yes, as described, perceiving oneself and one's tribe as a persecuted outsider is key, but also the conviction that "we have the truth", in this case the true understanding of the bible, Jesus and the whole package ("Christian worldview," who's in and who's out, the "wisdom" to understand the human condition, etc.) leads one to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't have that truth. These means that those who speak for science, for example, can be held in disregard (geologists who refuse to acknowledge young earth, pediatricians who condemn corporal punishment) or even suspicion, and this then blossoms into a vulnerability to being led astray by any charismatic leader who somehow has been able to prove that he or she is an insider. These may not be original ideas, but I am unable to cite a reference with confidence.
I will copy here my comment above to Deacon Godsey: I agree that fear is a big factor. I was listening to a podcast where the two hosts described how they were introduced, the specific tradition and message, to Christianity. One host stated regarding the tradition he inherited (evangelical if not fully fundamentalist), "There was so much fear and anxiety, that we would have never explored another religious tradition...it (his tradition) was quite insecure...". He goes on to say the doctrines produced an insecure faith. "Like I was not secure in my relationship with God." He was "viewing the faith through the 'sinner's' prayer...'your a sinner, and this is the solution to your sin'." The other, a former atheist, was introduced to Christianity more through an experience, Julia of Norwich, and the '"language of love."
Feb 8, 2022·edited Feb 8, 2022Liked by Scot McKnight
Hi Scott. Darrell Bock and I had lunch Friday. He had some good insights/thoughts on exactly this question (your first one, which a friend had written you about). While he spoke to evangelical history, we also discussed the lack of a robust (King Jesus) gospel, and the (related) lack of a healthy discipleship posture/culture within the church, particularly one that is rooted in the lordship of Christ and goodness of God.
I think that leads to people who don’t see themselves as restored image-bearers within God’s larger/broader movement/story. Instead, they’re still preoccupied with “their own story,” detached from what they were actually saved to/into. Thus, lesser, less-demanding gods capture their hearts, even as they believe they’re being faithful to Jesus. For me it brings to mind the piercing statement Jesus makes in Matthew 7 –
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:21-23 NRSV
I am not a sociologist, but I am fairly certain our recent history will be fuel for many a dissertation! For me the real and only issue is the church. I truly think that Jesus shows and teaches us that the kingdom of God is not ever ever the same as a human government or empire. Ever. Its methods are not the same, its goals are not the same, and how you live with each other is radically different that a "citizenship" of any country including the US. The power of the church has always been its greatest when it is devoid of political power. History has showed us the extremism that occurs when church leaders discover the power of aligning with politics.
Having come of age with Dobson, Falwell, Reagen, the move to "capitalize" on political power became an opiate to which the church is now addicted.
Also, i honestly do not think pastors know their own flocks. The only time in the past 30 years that a pastor has reached us to actually get acquainted was an interim Covenant pastor who sadly had to retire due to health. All the other pastors including our current church, love that we serve, give, teach the ex-incarcerated classes, and do prison ministry but not one of them has ever given us the time of day. We hear that all the time from many people. So, pastors are not very effective in helping their congregations process, discuss, and work through current event very well and you certainly cannot disciple from afar. People just naturally congregate with like-minded whatever that is. Church is just one more homogenous gathering instead of the radical diverse, committed to the welfare of every person made in the image of God community.
In my experience, it’s not about people trusting their pastoral leaders. As A pastor, I have to consistently push back against those beliefs in some of my people. They are getting this stuff through a network of sources outside of their local church walls. Sure, within that network lies some pastors, but not necessary ones that have a personal relationship and influence.
My guess is your questioner either doesn't personally know many conservative evangelicals or hasn't made much of an effort to understand their various stances on these issues judging by the caricatured way these bullet points are phrased. Send them my way and I'd be happy to address each one with them. Seriously. Happy to correspond either publicly or privately in a charitable manner. Also, Scot, everyone has a natural inclination to defend people they consider "on their side" while expressing less grace toward people they consider "on the other side." That's not a conservative evangelicalism problem, that's a human nature problem.
I know lots of conservative evangelicals. I can tell you most of them believe the election was stolen, Trump is a Christian, and were living ~*in the end times*~. Its time to stop pretending like the right and the left are equally unhinged. For the past 50 years to be an evangelical has meant you are a republican. This is a major problem and needs to be changed.
If you’d like to ask me any of the specific questions raised in Scot’s newsletter, I’d be happy to field them! But frankly I think it’s a speck/plank problem if you can’t witness the extreme amounts of lunacy on the Left. And I agree with you that there’s a lot of lunacy on the right as well.
Over 60% of white evangelicals (and nearly 70% of republicans) believe the election was stolen. Thats a very unique and dangerous level of delusion. There is not anything close to that level of widespread delusion on the left. Correct me if Im wrong.
Brother, with respect this is a lack of self-awareness (assuming you identify yourself as being on the Left). Russia gate was an insane, unhinged conspiracy theory that was treated as gospel by the Left. If you didn’t, that’s to your credit.
I try to avoid identifying as either on the right or the left because I think it invites a person to turn off their brain and engage in tribal thinking. I take a conservative or progressive approach depending on the topic. Many news outlets, including the new york times, have admitted that there was too much focus on it. But look, to call the whole thing a big hoax or "russia-gate", or on par with believing the election was stolen, I think is misguided. 34 people were indicted as a result of the Mueller investigation, including 6 former trump advisors. It was absolutely reasonable to believe there was something problematic was going on and the investigation warranted. The election delusion is a believe people hold with no evidence what so ever. None at all.
I appreciate that you work to avoid tribal thinking! But I do think that ratcheting up tensions for domestic political purposes with a nuclear armed nation is at least as dangerous as any false beliefs about the integrity of the election. I think we've probably said all we need to say about these topics though. But I still welcome you to ask me (a conservative evangelical) any of the questions posed by the person in Scot's newsletter. I'm here for anyone that wants to engage charitably around those topics.
Several of these things don’t jive with my experience. I don’t think conservative Christians are any more likely to be partisan than progressive Christian’s are.
Several of these can be answered by institutional distrust. What’s really bizarre to me is that anti vax used to be a left position but has sense migrated. Right wingers also now are more anti war than the bourgeois left (who is leading the charge for war with Russia)
Presumption of guilt really seems to have changed sides too. Can it really be argued that the left is more pro due process than the right now? Most of the civil libertarian left (greenwald, Taibbi) have been ostracized from their tribe over those questions. The right didn’t bring us “believe women” you know.
Gerrymandering is a silly one. Most people don’t know what gerrymandering is and I don’t know anyone who is “pro” that position. It’s also part of the reason that even with Reagan winning two major elections he never had republicans congresses.
Climate change is again about skepticism. After the highly politicized public health debacles seemingly more interested in social control than science, I think at least climate skepticism is gonna become a more broad position.
Restricting voting rights? Bc of voter id? Doesn’t like 80% of the country want voter id?
Truthfully, your friend seems to not actually know any working class republicans.
I think one could ask similar questions
Why are progressive Christian’s more likely to
Support abortion and planned parenthood?
Promote gender ideology?
Punch down at working class people and constantly claim they are “voting against their interests”
See black people as a monolith who all think the same about things, and attack those who don’t as not authentically black?
Lean heavily into credentialism to attack anyone who is skeptical of power (and really empire)
Truthfully - I really think what we’re dealing with here isn’t even theological. It’s class based. The left/progressive Christian’s are the party of the managerial/laptop class in urban areas and on the coasts. The right/conservative Christian’s are working class or petit bourgeois. Their life experiences (and their perception of who is in power and what the powerful think about them, ie deplorables) shape their views on things as much or even more than their faith. That’s both groups im talking about there.
This discussion would probably be more helpful, and more accurate, if looked at through the lense of social class rather than partisan politics. Left and right policy preferences have changed pretty dramatically since the defeat of the neocons and the restructuring of the Republican Party. The dems became the party of Wall Street and the college educated and the republicans became the party of union workers, self employed tradespeople. If you don’t understand that, you’ll misunderstand everything downstream.
It seems like you're accusing the criticisms of the right as not being nuanced, and then using a broad brush in your criticisms of the left. Of course both ideologies have changed over time, who cares who was right or wrong decades ago. The point is, we need healthy progressivism and conservatism today. To say that both the right and the left are equally unhinged at this point seems so utterly ridiculous. Conservative evangelicals overwhelmingly believe the election was stolen - an unfathomable level of delusion driven not by evidence, but by the cultish devotion for Donald Trump. After the elections, conservative states all over the country began tightening up voter restrictions, driven be the false idea that there was widespread voter fraud. They tend to have no concern for climate change. Are anti-science in regards to the vaccine resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands. I really don't think I'm overstating the cost of that. And all the decades of ridiculous culture wars and crying about not being able to say merry christmas, and that the gays are ruining marriage for all of us. They've successfully pulled a martyr complex out of thin air despite being a dominant population in the country. You're of course right that the left has their own issues. But in my estimation, the evangelical church's problem is not liberalism. Its problem is a long history anti-intellectualism, racism, and poor theology. To me its obvious that the republicans largest voting block are people without a college degree and people living in former slave states. Thats no accident.
That’s my point. My questions are broad brush just like the ones Scot’s friend posed. They are unhelpful.
As for election theft. I still remember some pretty high numbers who thought Russia stole the election from Hillary Clinton. I also remember Diebold Machines and Ohio in 2004 and hanging chads in 2000.
What’s happening is not new. The only elections without a substantial group claiming it was rigged in the last 20 years have been obama in 08 and 12z. And if you asked “evangelicals” I’d imagine you’d hear less Sidney Powell kraken nonsense and more how the hunter Biden laptop story was censored, how all the institutions lined up against trump as described eloquently in time magazine in early 2021. That article itself says enough for me to feel like it wasn’t fair.
I would argue that this is new. There was not a significant percentage of people that believed in election fraud in those elections. Not to the extent that we're seeing it among republicans/evangelicals, which according to the latest poll I've seen is 60%. Thats an extraordinary figure. We've also never before seen a group storm the capital because they believed the election was stolen. There is a growing problem of conspiratorial thinking and according to polling data, it's much more prevalent among evangelicals than the broader population.
85% of democrats believed Russia meddled in the election. Whatever their definition of “meddled” is. Numerous left of center politicians said trump was illegitimate because of it. I think you’re misremembering history.
Well thats not up for debate. They did "meddle" in the election, I don't think anybody disputes that at this point. If'll you'll remember, 36 people were indicted as a result of the Mueller report, including 6 of Trumps advisors. Nobody was claiming they directly hacked into ballot machines, although they tried to. But there is no question that the Russians had an elaborate push to bolster Trumps chances of winning.
"Why do they get so entangled with corrupted leaders or, when corruption appears, why do they immediately defend the leader?" Do you really think the democrats aren't corrupt? Do you really think Hillary Clinton has clean hands and a pure heart? Joe Biden? Whatever leftists think of those who voted for Trump, those on the right have the same thoughts about those on the left who voted for Clinton or more recently Biden. Please. Scot, I love you, man, but you really frustrate me with these posts. There's no dealing with the complexities of these issues. Much of what people say about conservative evangelicals is just plain ignorant and the characterization of many of these issues is just plain wrong. Maybe you and others should actually talk with a variety of conservative evangelicals instead of just writing with broad strokes and unfair caricatures. Yeah, I'm frustrated.
Sorry for frustrating you, but what you quote is a summary of David French’s article. By summarizing French neither he nor I was any where near saying Dems aren’t corrupt. I got a question about the Right and I wondered if French, who is a conservative, had a possible answer to some of what was driving the question. Are you suggesting that I don’t “walk” with conservatives? I surely do. I don’t think the questioner was offering caricature so much as stuff now in the articles by way of statistics.
Admittedly overly simplistic answer here (since otherwise I’d write an entirely too long post):
1. Fear (of getting it “wrong,” of being “unsafe,” of being disloyal (to the Constitution and flag), of eternal conscious torment in hell, etc.) If there’s one thing consistent amongst fundamentalists of all stripes, it’s fear.
2. As Oz Guinness describes in A CASE FOR CIVILITY, they have romanticized the past, and radicalized the present in an effort to “make America great again” (my inserted analogy) without realizing it was never great (from a Christlike perspective) in the first place. Which leads to what I think is the biggest issue:
3. Because they have effectively constructed a version of Christianity without anything remotely reflecting the life and teaching of Jesus.
Thanks Deacon.
I agree that fear is a big factor. I was listening to a podcast where the two hosts described how they were introduced, the specific tradition and message, to Christianity. One host stated regarding the tradition he inherited (evangelical if not fully fundamentalist), "There was so much fear and anxiety, that we would have never explored another religious tradition...it (his tradition) was quite insecure...". He goes on to say the doctrines produced an insecure faith. "Like I was not secure in my relationship with God." He was "viewing the faith through the 'sinner's' prayer...'your a sinner, and this is the solution to your sin'." The other host, a former atheist, was introduced to Christianity more through an experience, Julia of Norwich, and the '"language of love." Those introductions to the faith, and emphasis in each, greatly impacted how they saw God, the faith, etc....
Folks, this was a civil conversation with disagreement clear -- reminds me of the One T Saloon back in the old days on Jesus Creed. Thanks so much John and Zach.
I grew up in fundamentalism. I understand its power. It is, in the word of sociologist Max Weber, that "the sacred is uniquely unalterable." What folks are told is from GOD (or is the proper interpretation of God's Word) cannot be questioned or changed in any way. This provides the ground for any and every crazy thing a leader wants to attach to it. Deacon Godsey is right: it's all about fear. It is as Peter Murphy put it, "we have the truth" and to dare to question it is to put one on the slippery road to error. David Lipscomb questions that we're dealing with a specifically fundamentalist teaching, that other groups may embrace similar litanies. True, but the issue is how anything is taught. Any teaching someone embraces will become unalterable if once the word is "from God." The fundamentalism in which I was reared did precisely that.
Having travelled through Christian communities prone as they are to fall for conspiracy theories, etc., I feel as though there are two vital components to the responses that we see from these communities as listed in this morning's brief: yes, as described, perceiving oneself and one's tribe as a persecuted outsider is key, but also the conviction that "we have the truth", in this case the true understanding of the bible, Jesus and the whole package ("Christian worldview," who's in and who's out, the "wisdom" to understand the human condition, etc.) leads one to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't have that truth. These means that those who speak for science, for example, can be held in disregard (geologists who refuse to acknowledge young earth, pediatricians who condemn corporal punishment) or even suspicion, and this then blossoms into a vulnerability to being led astray by any charismatic leader who somehow has been able to prove that he or she is an insider. These may not be original ideas, but I am unable to cite a reference with confidence.
Which is what David French was on about, too.
I’ve wondered what kind of theology grooms or builds this manifestation of things listed above by your friend.
Partisanized theology, which is not the same as political theology.
I will copy here my comment above to Deacon Godsey: I agree that fear is a big factor. I was listening to a podcast where the two hosts described how they were introduced, the specific tradition and message, to Christianity. One host stated regarding the tradition he inherited (evangelical if not fully fundamentalist), "There was so much fear and anxiety, that we would have never explored another religious tradition...it (his tradition) was quite insecure...". He goes on to say the doctrines produced an insecure faith. "Like I was not secure in my relationship with God." He was "viewing the faith through the 'sinner's' prayer...'your a sinner, and this is the solution to your sin'." The other, a former atheist, was introduced to Christianity more through an experience, Julia of Norwich, and the '"language of love."
Hi Scott. Darrell Bock and I had lunch Friday. He had some good insights/thoughts on exactly this question (your first one, which a friend had written you about). While he spoke to evangelical history, we also discussed the lack of a robust (King Jesus) gospel, and the (related) lack of a healthy discipleship posture/culture within the church, particularly one that is rooted in the lordship of Christ and goodness of God.
I think that leads to people who don’t see themselves as restored image-bearers within God’s larger/broader movement/story. Instead, they’re still preoccupied with “their own story,” detached from what they were actually saved to/into. Thus, lesser, less-demanding gods capture their hearts, even as they believe they’re being faithful to Jesus. For me it brings to mind the piercing statement Jesus makes in Matthew 7 –
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’” Matthew 7:21-23 NRSV
Thanks Rob. Good perspective here as the Lordship theme reshapes the entire political theme.
Well said. Interesting to me that Skye Jethani's devotional this morning referenced the same verse. It's on my mind a lot and increasingly so.
Rapture theology. Evangelicals were trained to be paranoid and to see governmental conspiracies by Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.
this post feels lazy. and not in good faith. Kind of click baity.
Seems like a softball tossed up so one tribe can just swing away gracelessly at the other. (some false dichotomy i there too)
And the categories should not be yoked as though there is ONE answer for all of them.
Imagine a similar list for progressives. "Why do progressives support women pastors, and abortion up to the birth canal...."
I am not a sociologist, but I am fairly certain our recent history will be fuel for many a dissertation! For me the real and only issue is the church. I truly think that Jesus shows and teaches us that the kingdom of God is not ever ever the same as a human government or empire. Ever. Its methods are not the same, its goals are not the same, and how you live with each other is radically different that a "citizenship" of any country including the US. The power of the church has always been its greatest when it is devoid of political power. History has showed us the extremism that occurs when church leaders discover the power of aligning with politics.
Having come of age with Dobson, Falwell, Reagen, the move to "capitalize" on political power became an opiate to which the church is now addicted.
Also, i honestly do not think pastors know their own flocks. The only time in the past 30 years that a pastor has reached us to actually get acquainted was an interim Covenant pastor who sadly had to retire due to health. All the other pastors including our current church, love that we serve, give, teach the ex-incarcerated classes, and do prison ministry but not one of them has ever given us the time of day. We hear that all the time from many people. So, pastors are not very effective in helping their congregations process, discuss, and work through current event very well and you certainly cannot disciple from afar. People just naturally congregate with like-minded whatever that is. Church is just one more homogenous gathering instead of the radical diverse, committed to the welfare of every person made in the image of God community.
In my experience, it’s not about people trusting their pastoral leaders. As A pastor, I have to consistently push back against those beliefs in some of my people. They are getting this stuff through a network of sources outside of their local church walls. Sure, within that network lies some pastors, but not necessary ones that have a personal relationship and influence.
My guess is your questioner either doesn't personally know many conservative evangelicals or hasn't made much of an effort to understand their various stances on these issues judging by the caricatured way these bullet points are phrased. Send them my way and I'd be happy to address each one with them. Seriously. Happy to correspond either publicly or privately in a charitable manner. Also, Scot, everyone has a natural inclination to defend people they consider "on their side" while expressing less grace toward people they consider "on the other side." That's not a conservative evangelicalism problem, that's a human nature problem.
Hi John, Listened to this podcast and thought about our conversation. Thought you might enjoy it as much as I did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZE-SJShkE
I know lots of conservative evangelicals. I can tell you most of them believe the election was stolen, Trump is a Christian, and were living ~*in the end times*~. Its time to stop pretending like the right and the left are equally unhinged. For the past 50 years to be an evangelical has meant you are a republican. This is a major problem and needs to be changed.
If you’d like to ask me any of the specific questions raised in Scot’s newsletter, I’d be happy to field them! But frankly I think it’s a speck/plank problem if you can’t witness the extreme amounts of lunacy on the Left. And I agree with you that there’s a lot of lunacy on the right as well.
Over 60% of white evangelicals (and nearly 70% of republicans) believe the election was stolen. Thats a very unique and dangerous level of delusion. There is not anything close to that level of widespread delusion on the left. Correct me if Im wrong.
Brother, with respect this is a lack of self-awareness (assuming you identify yourself as being on the Left). Russia gate was an insane, unhinged conspiracy theory that was treated as gospel by the Left. If you didn’t, that’s to your credit.
I try to avoid identifying as either on the right or the left because I think it invites a person to turn off their brain and engage in tribal thinking. I take a conservative or progressive approach depending on the topic. Many news outlets, including the new york times, have admitted that there was too much focus on it. But look, to call the whole thing a big hoax or "russia-gate", or on par with believing the election was stolen, I think is misguided. 34 people were indicted as a result of the Mueller investigation, including 6 former trump advisors. It was absolutely reasonable to believe there was something problematic was going on and the investigation warranted. The election delusion is a believe people hold with no evidence what so ever. None at all.
I appreciate that you work to avoid tribal thinking! But I do think that ratcheting up tensions for domestic political purposes with a nuclear armed nation is at least as dangerous as any false beliefs about the integrity of the election. I think we've probably said all we need to say about these topics though. But I still welcome you to ask me (a conservative evangelical) any of the questions posed by the person in Scot's newsletter. I'm here for anyone that wants to engage charitably around those topics.
Several of these things don’t jive with my experience. I don’t think conservative Christians are any more likely to be partisan than progressive Christian’s are.
Several of these can be answered by institutional distrust. What’s really bizarre to me is that anti vax used to be a left position but has sense migrated. Right wingers also now are more anti war than the bourgeois left (who is leading the charge for war with Russia)
Presumption of guilt really seems to have changed sides too. Can it really be argued that the left is more pro due process than the right now? Most of the civil libertarian left (greenwald, Taibbi) have been ostracized from their tribe over those questions. The right didn’t bring us “believe women” you know.
Gerrymandering is a silly one. Most people don’t know what gerrymandering is and I don’t know anyone who is “pro” that position. It’s also part of the reason that even with Reagan winning two major elections he never had republicans congresses.
Climate change is again about skepticism. After the highly politicized public health debacles seemingly more interested in social control than science, I think at least climate skepticism is gonna become a more broad position.
Restricting voting rights? Bc of voter id? Doesn’t like 80% of the country want voter id?
Truthfully, your friend seems to not actually know any working class republicans.
I think one could ask similar questions
Why are progressive Christian’s more likely to
Support abortion and planned parenthood?
Promote gender ideology?
Punch down at working class people and constantly claim they are “voting against their interests”
See black people as a monolith who all think the same about things, and attack those who don’t as not authentically black?
Lean heavily into credentialism to attack anyone who is skeptical of power (and really empire)
Truthfully - I really think what we’re dealing with here isn’t even theological. It’s class based. The left/progressive Christian’s are the party of the managerial/laptop class in urban areas and on the coasts. The right/conservative Christian’s are working class or petit bourgeois. Their life experiences (and their perception of who is in power and what the powerful think about them, ie deplorables) shape their views on things as much or even more than their faith. That’s both groups im talking about there.
This discussion would probably be more helpful, and more accurate, if looked at through the lense of social class rather than partisan politics. Left and right policy preferences have changed pretty dramatically since the defeat of the neocons and the restructuring of the Republican Party. The dems became the party of Wall Street and the college educated and the republicans became the party of union workers, self employed tradespeople. If you don’t understand that, you’ll misunderstand everything downstream.
It seems like you're accusing the criticisms of the right as not being nuanced, and then using a broad brush in your criticisms of the left. Of course both ideologies have changed over time, who cares who was right or wrong decades ago. The point is, we need healthy progressivism and conservatism today. To say that both the right and the left are equally unhinged at this point seems so utterly ridiculous. Conservative evangelicals overwhelmingly believe the election was stolen - an unfathomable level of delusion driven not by evidence, but by the cultish devotion for Donald Trump. After the elections, conservative states all over the country began tightening up voter restrictions, driven be the false idea that there was widespread voter fraud. They tend to have no concern for climate change. Are anti-science in regards to the vaccine resulting in the deaths of 100s of thousands. I really don't think I'm overstating the cost of that. And all the decades of ridiculous culture wars and crying about not being able to say merry christmas, and that the gays are ruining marriage for all of us. They've successfully pulled a martyr complex out of thin air despite being a dominant population in the country. You're of course right that the left has their own issues. But in my estimation, the evangelical church's problem is not liberalism. Its problem is a long history anti-intellectualism, racism, and poor theology. To me its obvious that the republicans largest voting block are people without a college degree and people living in former slave states. Thats no accident.
That’s my point. My questions are broad brush just like the ones Scot’s friend posed. They are unhelpful.
As for election theft. I still remember some pretty high numbers who thought Russia stole the election from Hillary Clinton. I also remember Diebold Machines and Ohio in 2004 and hanging chads in 2000.
What’s happening is not new. The only elections without a substantial group claiming it was rigged in the last 20 years have been obama in 08 and 12z. And if you asked “evangelicals” I’d imagine you’d hear less Sidney Powell kraken nonsense and more how the hunter Biden laptop story was censored, how all the institutions lined up against trump as described eloquently in time magazine in early 2021. That article itself says enough for me to feel like it wasn’t fair.
I would argue that this is new. There was not a significant percentage of people that believed in election fraud in those elections. Not to the extent that we're seeing it among republicans/evangelicals, which according to the latest poll I've seen is 60%. Thats an extraordinary figure. We've also never before seen a group storm the capital because they believed the election was stolen. There is a growing problem of conspiratorial thinking and according to polling data, it's much more prevalent among evangelicals than the broader population.
85% of democrats believed Russia meddled in the election. Whatever their definition of “meddled” is. Numerous left of center politicians said trump was illegitimate because of it. I think you’re misremembering history.
Well thats not up for debate. They did "meddle" in the election, I don't think anybody disputes that at this point. If'll you'll remember, 36 people were indicted as a result of the Mueller report, including 6 of Trumps advisors. Nobody was claiming they directly hacked into ballot machines, although they tried to. But there is no question that the Russians had an elaborate push to bolster Trumps chances of winning.
https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/
I'd really like to see Scot respond to this.
"Why do they get so entangled with corrupted leaders or, when corruption appears, why do they immediately defend the leader?" Do you really think the democrats aren't corrupt? Do you really think Hillary Clinton has clean hands and a pure heart? Joe Biden? Whatever leftists think of those who voted for Trump, those on the right have the same thoughts about those on the left who voted for Clinton or more recently Biden. Please. Scot, I love you, man, but you really frustrate me with these posts. There's no dealing with the complexities of these issues. Much of what people say about conservative evangelicals is just plain ignorant and the characterization of many of these issues is just plain wrong. Maybe you and others should actually talk with a variety of conservative evangelicals instead of just writing with broad strokes and unfair caricatures. Yeah, I'm frustrated.
Sorry for frustrating you, but what you quote is a summary of David French’s article. By summarizing French neither he nor I was any where near saying Dems aren’t corrupt. I got a question about the Right and I wondered if French, who is a conservative, had a possible answer to some of what was driving the question. Are you suggesting that I don’t “walk” with conservatives? I surely do. I don’t think the questioner was offering caricature so much as stuff now in the articles by way of statistics.
Well said
Not so in the UK, of course…