Infamous Pastor Argues Christian Obligation to Elect "Strongman" Donald Trump
The Republican Party's evangelical wing is wrapped up in a curious bit of hypocrisy both symptomatic and emblematic of egregious sin among evangelical conservative Christians. Recent presidential cycles have celebrated Republicans rushing to various prayer festivals and other Christian gatherings hoping to snare votes by showing off their piety for the sake of being seen by others; this behavior as well as the congregants' expectation that these candidates should do so directly contravene Jesus Christ (Mt. 6.5↱). The Response and other such political events masquerading as Christianity are bacchanalia of sin.
In 2008, as this slapstick tumbled forth, Pastor Robert Jeffress attempted to set Christians against one another, attacking the religious faith of Republican candidate Mitt Romney; in 2011, he escalated his attack at the Values Voter Summit, itself a product of the infamous Family Research Council, which in turn is a wing of the notorious, Wildmon-founded hate group American Family Association.
The incendiary Baptist televangelist apparently revels in the notoriety; earlier this week Jeffress asserted a "biblical" demand for a "strongman" to lead the United States:
Pastor Jeffress is emblematic of a disruptive subset within American Christendom; evangelical bigots and authoritarians tend to define the Christian voice in the American political discourse. To wit, are all Christians really so hateful and self-centered? We know this isn't the case, yet how do we measure this apparently outsized delusional influence by which right is wrong and Christian faith is entirely about oneself?
Or we might simply consider the conundrum:
In either case, the concomitant question is the same:
It seems rather an important question. And Jeffress is hardly alone in this context; there are plenty of conservative Christian preachers advocating political defiance of Christ in Jesus' name, amen.
This seems rather problematic in a certain sense. Functionally, we know there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who vote against policies promoted by the evangelical conservative Christian political bloc. Rarely, however, do they stand up to their brethren and publicly rebuke such rejection and abandonment of Christ? As Pastor Jeffress sees it, such dereliction is Christian duty.
But in between there are also proactive Christian evangelists who have the appearance of running interference; they resent the discussion of Christianity but have nothing to say about the injurious influences people are describing and struggling against. It seems strange to disdain the description while ignoring the reason it exists; to wit, if people hadn't been voting about authoritarianism derived from assertions of "Christianity", this apparently distressing confusion of rhetoric wouldn't even exist. That is to say, were evil not perpetually stalking the land, asserting its Christian identity with impunity, people would not have cause to worry about this assertion of Christianity. These in-betweeners seem more interested in complaining that people notice than actually addressing the problem.
The problem is looking to my kindly Christian neighbors and saying, "Okay, you're up. Go, do, settle this with your brethren, please." Shall we presume they've been doing this the whole time? If not, why not? If so, well, yeah, then I think we all get the point that these conservative evangelical wolves aren't listening.
So what the hell are we going to do? Doctrinally, our Christian neighbors cannot simply shrug, say, "Well, I tried", and leave their brethren to the Fires. Even still, though, there remains the fact that meanwhile, we must all continue to find some way to deal with this.
Let's illustrate it this way:
And therein lies the problem.
One of the tacit trade-offs in these poltical relationships is that the more liberal Christians generally don't whine about generalizations the way the in-betweeners do. Every time they vote, and "Christianity" is on the ballot, they are exactly aware of why others are showing the word sharp tongues.
We should not envy them; part of their doctrinal obligation is to endure this until they can figure out a way to witness effectively unto their brethren that does not require stooping to sin.
Meanwhile, perhaps we might start identifying some boundaries.
Pastor Jeffress provides an excellent example: Are "Christians" obliged to raise a "strongman" whose principles and behavior defy Christ?
____________________
Notes:
Blue, Miranda. "Jeffress Says He Backs Trump Because It's 'Biblical' To Support A 'Strongman". Right Wing Watch. 13 July 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 16 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2aiT0ca
Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 16 July 2016. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
The Republican Party's evangelical wing is wrapped up in a curious bit of hypocrisy both symptomatic and emblematic of egregious sin among evangelical conservative Christians. Recent presidential cycles have celebrated Republicans rushing to various prayer festivals and other Christian gatherings hoping to snare votes by showing off their piety for the sake of being seen by others; this behavior as well as the congregants' expectation that these candidates should do so directly contravene Jesus Christ (Mt. 6.5↱). The Response and other such political events masquerading as Christianity are bacchanalia of sin.
In 2008, as this slapstick tumbled forth, Pastor Robert Jeffress attempted to set Christians against one another, attacking the religious faith of Republican candidate Mitt Romney; in 2011, he escalated his attack at the Values Voter Summit, itself a product of the infamous Family Research Council, which in turn is a wing of the notorious, Wildmon-founded hate group American Family Association.
The incendiary Baptist televangelist apparently revels in the notoriety; earlier this week Jeffress asserted a "biblical" demand for a "strongman" to lead the United States:
"But as far as his worldview, Trump's worldview," he continued, "you know, I was debating an evangelical professor on NPR and this professor said, 'Pastor, don't you want a candidate who embodies the teaching of Jesus and would govern this country according to the principles found in the Sermon on the Mount?' I said, 'Heck no.' I would run from that candidate as far as possible, because the Sermon on the Mount was not given as a governing principle for this nation.
"Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it, nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I'm looking for somebody who's going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don't care about that candidate's tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that's biblical."
(Blue↱; boldface accent added)
"Nowhere is government told to forgive those who wrong it, nowhere is government told to turn the other cheek. Government is to be a strongman to protect its citizens against evildoers. When I'm looking for somebody who's going to deal with ISIS and exterminate ISIS, I don't care about that candidate's tone or vocabulary, I want the meanest, toughest, son of a you-know-what I can find, and I believe that's biblical."
(Blue↱; boldface accent added)
Pastor Jeffress is emblematic of a disruptive subset within American Christendom; evangelical bigots and authoritarians tend to define the Christian voice in the American political discourse. To wit, are all Christians really so hateful and self-centered? We know this isn't the case, yet how do we measure this apparently outsized delusional influence by which right is wrong and Christian faith is entirely about oneself?
Or we might simply consider the conundrum:
Did Pastor Jeffress ...
... just disqualify Christians from the presidency?
... or ...
... propose a Christian serving the presidency should abandon faith?
In either case, the concomitant question is the same:
Do other Christians accept this assignation?
It seems rather an important question. And Jeffress is hardly alone in this context; there are plenty of conservative Christian preachers advocating political defiance of Christ in Jesus' name, amen.
This seems rather problematic in a certain sense. Functionally, we know there are millions of Christians in the U.S. who vote against policies promoted by the evangelical conservative Christian political bloc. Rarely, however, do they stand up to their brethren and publicly rebuke such rejection and abandonment of Christ? As Pastor Jeffress sees it, such dereliction is Christian duty.
But in between there are also proactive Christian evangelists who have the appearance of running interference; they resent the discussion of Christianity but have nothing to say about the injurious influences people are describing and struggling against. It seems strange to disdain the description while ignoring the reason it exists; to wit, if people hadn't been voting about authoritarianism derived from assertions of "Christianity", this apparently distressing confusion of rhetoric wouldn't even exist. That is to say, were evil not perpetually stalking the land, asserting its Christian identity with impunity, people would not have cause to worry about this assertion of Christianity. These in-betweeners seem more interested in complaining that people notice than actually addressing the problem.
The problem is looking to my kindly Christian neighbors and saying, "Okay, you're up. Go, do, settle this with your brethren, please." Shall we presume they've been doing this the whole time? If not, why not? If so, well, yeah, then I think we all get the point that these conservative evangelical wolves aren't listening.
So what the hell are we going to do? Doctrinally, our Christian neighbors cannot simply shrug, say, "Well, I tried", and leave their brethren to the Fires. Even still, though, there remains the fact that meanwhile, we must all continue to find some way to deal with this.
Let's illustrate it this way:
• There are Christians who vote for justice and goodness while not making much of a spectacle trying to stop their brethren from trying. As much as, say, homosexuals appreciate those votes and prayers and support, we're going to set them aside for the moment, because conservative evangelical Christian politics rhetorically require, by dint of identity assertion representing all Christians, that these others don't exist.
• Many conservative Christians assert god-given Liberty.
• Pastor Jeffress asserts a biblical requirement against that Liberty; the Word of God apparently requires an American strongman.
• Many conservative Christians assert god-given Liberty.
• Pastor Jeffress asserts a biblical requirement against that Liberty; the Word of God apparently requires an American strongman.
↳ Which of these competing conservative assertions of Christianity should represent Christianity?
→ Hint: In either case, they both oppose Liberty and require cruelty. You know, in Jesus' name, amen.
And therein lies the problem.
One of the tacit trade-offs in these poltical relationships is that the more liberal Christians generally don't whine about generalizations the way the in-betweeners do. Every time they vote, and "Christianity" is on the ballot, they are exactly aware of why others are showing the word sharp tongues.
We should not envy them; part of their doctrinal obligation is to endure this until they can figure out a way to witness effectively unto their brethren that does not require stooping to sin.
Meanwhile, perhaps we might start identifying some boundaries.
Pastor Jeffress provides an excellent example: Are "Christians" obliged to raise a "strongman" whose principles and behavior defy Christ?
____________________
Notes:
Blue, Miranda. "Jeffress Says He Backs Trump Because It's 'Biblical' To Support A 'Strongman". Right Wing Watch. 13 July 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 16 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2aiT0ca
Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 16 July 2016. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/