Has Support for Moore Stained Evangelicals? Some Are Worried
The editor in chief of Christianity Today did not have to wait for the votes to be counted to publish his essay on Tuesday bemoaning what the Alabama Senate race had wrought.
Whoever wins, “there is already one loser: Christian faith,” wrote Mark Galli, whose publication, the flagship of American evangelicalism, was founded 61 years ago by the Rev. Billy Graham. “No one will believe a word we say, perhaps for a generation. Christianity’s integrity is severely tarnished.
Supporters of Roy S. Moore prayed at his campaign’s election-night party in Montgomery, Ala., on Tuesday.
Despite heavy backing from white evangelical voters, Mr. Moore was defeated in the Senate special election.
Audra Melton for The New York Times
The sight of white evangelical voters in Alabama giving their overwhelming support to Roy S. Moore, the Republican candidate, despite accusations of racial and religious bigotry, misogyny and assaults on teenage girls, has deeply troubled many conservative Christians, who fear that association with the likes of Mr. Moore is giving their faith a bad name. The angst has grown so deep, Mr. Galli said, that he knows of “many card-carrying evangelicals” who are ready to disavow the label.
The evangelical brand “is definitely tarnished” by politicization from whatever side, Mr. Galli said on Wednesday. “No question about it.”
He said that his readers seemed to agree with the thrust of his essay. The main criticism he received, he said, was one he agreed with: that he should have made it clearer that he was referring not to all Christians, but to evangelicals in particular.
The bloc that has marched under the banner of the “Moral Majority” and “values voters” has now been tagged as the most reliable base of support for both Mr. Moore and President Trump, two politicians who are known for fanning racial and religious prejudices and who stand accused of sexual harassment by numerous women — accusations that each man denies. White evangelicals across the country delivered 81 percent of their votes to Mr. Trump last year, according to exit poll data, and backed Mr. Moore in Alabama by the same proportion on Tuesday.
“It grieves me,” said Ed Stetzer, executive director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical school in Illinois. “I don’t want ‘evangelical’ to mean people who supported candidates with significant and credible accusations against them. If evangelical means that, it has serious ramifications for the work of Christians and churches.”
That notion is bewildering to evangelical leaders who see Mr. Trump as their champion. They say that Mr. Trump has given them more access than any president in recent memory, and has done more to advance their agenda, by appointing judges who are likely to rule against abortion and gay rights; by channeling government funds to private religious schools; by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and by calling for the elimination of the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches and charitable groups from endorsing political candidates.
“I believe that God answered our prayers in a way we didn’t expect, for a person we didn’t even necessarily like,” said Stephen E. Strang, author of “God and Donald Trump” and founder of Charisma Media, a Christian publishing house.
“Christians believe in redemption and forgiveness, so they’re willing to give Donald Trump a chance,” said Mr. Strang, who is a member of the president’s informal council of evangelical advisers. “If he turns out to be a lecher like Bill Clinton, or dishonest in some kind of way, in a way that’s proven, you’ll see the support fade as quick as it came.”
Mr. Strang said that those who talk about Mr. Trump tarnishing the evangelical brand “are not really believers — they’re not with us, anyway.”
Will Hinton, a web developer in Atlanta, said he knew hundreds of politically conservative evangelicals who had grown increasingly repulsed by the religious right’s leaders, the tone they take and some of the causes and candidates they promote.
Mr. Hinton grew up in the movement as a politically active high school student who spoke at conferences and worked on Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign. Now, at 45, he said he was still an evangelical, still a conservative, but without a political party or movement.
“I have dozens of conservative evangelical friends who were so happy that Roy Moore did not win,” he said, “because the evangelical support for Trump and Roy Moore is ruining the witness for Christ for generations in this country.”
Some evangelicals have expressed concern about their movement being publicly associated
with politicians like Roy Moore who have been dogged by scandal.
Credit Kevin D. Liles for The New York Times
Evangelicals, often known as born-again Christians, belong to many denominations of churches, but they share some basic tenets: believers must accept Jesus as a personal savior, spread the gospel, and regard the Bible as the ultimate authority and the sacrifice of Jesus as necessary for the salvation of humanity.
When it comes to politics, however, the evangelical bloc is not rock solid, and the last year and a half has brought the cracks to the surface. There are evangelicals who took to Mr. Trump early on, evangelicals who were gradually won over, and evangelicals who were and proudly remain #NeverTrump, as some proclaim online.
There are young evangelicals who are disavowing their elders. There are Latino, Asian, black and Native American evangelicals who are outraged at white believers for allying with a president they regard as racist and hostile to immigrants. The black hip-hop artist LeCrae made waves when he recently gave an interview announcing that he had divorced himself from white evangelicalism.
Jemar Tisby, president of “The Witness, a black Christian collective,” a faith-based media company that provides commentary on race, religion and culture, said in an interview that while Mr. Trump was running for office, “we were saying, this man is promoting bigotry, white supremacists find an ally in him and this is going to be bad for us.”
“And not only did they vote for him,” Mr. Tisby continued, “they voted for him in slightly higher numbers than they did for Mitt Romney. It was a sense of betrayal.”
Mr. Tisby, who co-hosts the podcast “Pass the Mic,” said that many blacks who hold evangelical beliefs have been reluctant to identify themselves as evangelicals, and that reluctance was growing.
“It’s counterproductive to identify as evangelical,” he said. “What’s happened with evangelicalism is, it has become so conflated with Republican politics, that you can’t tell where Christianity ends and partisanship begins.”
There are signs that evangelicals have begun to drift away from their solid support for Mr. Trump. A poll conducted from Nov. 29 to Dec. 4 by the Pew Research Center found that the president’s job approval among white evangelical Protestants had fallen to 61 percent, from 78 percent in February.
The association with Mr. Moore troubled some women evangelicals who found his accusers to be credible. Two women said that he had sexually molested them when they were teenagers, and others said that he had taken them out on dates or hounded them at work, accusations that Mr. Moore denies.
Some female evangelicals said on social media that they stayed home rather than vote for either Mr. Moore or his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, whose views on issues like abortion are distant from their own.
Many women have expressed the broader concern that overlooking accusations of sexual misconduct against favored politicians sends a dangerous message that women who come forward can be dismissed in the service of a political agenda.
“We’ve let evil overtake the entire reputation of Evangelicalism,” one prominent evangelical author, Beth Moore, wrote on Twitter the day before the election. “The lust for power is nauseating. Racism, appalling. The arrogance, terrifying. The misogyny so far from Christlikeness, it can’t be Christianity.”
People have had the impulse to jettison the evangelical label before, according to Mr. Stetzer of Wheaton College. It came up after the televangelist scandals involving Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart in the 1980s. But the idea received new attention and momentum soon after Mr. Trump was elected.
Mr. Galli, the magazine editor, said he had recently brainstormed a list of 50 to 100 words, looking for a suitable substitute term. Among them: Neo-evangelical, Gospel Christian, Followers of Jesus.
“Purple-cow Christianity,” he said. “It doesn’t really matter. It’s the reality underneath that we affirm.”
=============================
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
The key is
Trump Evangelists define their own Christianity by their political tribe.
Any "follower of Christ" should be horrified.
Teavangelicals deserve the negative connotations associated with defending the child molesters they support for office.
I think the candidature of Mr Moore, so solidly supported by self-styled Christians, has disgusted secular people toward all Christians. So Christians who do not want their faith associated with ephebophilia (sexual desire for adolescents) must protest, or they become Mr Moore's accomplices.
The passivity of most Christians, who allow their name to be associated with Mr Moore, is already a form of complicity.
So it's good to see an influential source like Christianity Today making this argument. But there's a long way to go!
Most secular people are smart enough to distinguish between real Christians and the fake xtian extremists. The teavangelical cult only uses Christianity as a convenient shield because of it's size and disposition.
Candidature?? Lol, is that even a word? Morning Bob, donut?
1 - select word
2 - click-right
3 - select "search Google"
4 - learn a new word
-
Just coffee in the morning, thanks...
Thank-you for teaching me how to look up definitions of words, Bob, I never knew that before. I've always used 'candidacy,' which seems like the same word to me, but I'm not a genius like you.
And my cyber donuts are the most delicious on the entire worldwide web, you don't know what you're missing!
The fact that any Christian would support Roy Moore is proof that God has abandoned us.
... rather... that those "Christians" have abandoned God...
So...are you saying that Christianity SHOULD support Roy Moore? That's a joke...right?
Are you excusing God?
He's a logical, intelligent person except for his god delusion though. The god delusion is powerful, we all have a strong survival instinct, no one wants to die...
How did you reach that interpretation of my words?
I... ummmm..... rarely pass judgment on God...
He has nothing to do with the acts of "those who take His name in vain".
It really quite simple, Trump is willing to stand with them against a woman's right to chose, against civil rights for gays, and for allowing government funds to support their cult. Sure, they would prefer that Trump be a good family man who could actually quote a bible verse or two, but if he's willing to advance their agenda, they will look past his personal shortcomings. It's understandable that they do this too. If you consider abortion to be the murder of babies, you will fight this any way you can, and vote in anyone who you think might help you stop all the baby murdering even if that person is an amoral pussy grabber. The problem isn't their support of Trump, it's the positions they take on these issues.
It's much more sinister than that. To understand, you need to think about these"positions", which are always camouflage for something else: control of other people.
Take abortion, for example. There are at least ten times more spontaneous "miscarriages" due to non-implantation than there are abortions. (Perhaps many more since the woman may not know what happened.) If "a fertilized egg is a baby", then all these non-implanted fertilized eggs are "dead babies". A hecatomb (use Google to learn new words) vastly greater than abortion.
Do you see right-to-lifers marching in the streets to obtain research funds to put an end to this carnage? Nope. Because in fact, they don't care about the "babies". They want to control the behavior of the women.
I have pointed out this "more 'babies' die of non-implantation" fallacy many times to right-to-lifers. Not once has the reaction been one of horror for all the "dead babies". It's always a shrug. Because the "dead babies" aren't the real subject.
I think many ordinary people don't understand what's going on, but they're following preacher who most certainly do!
I agree to a certain extent, but there ARE many people who are seriously upset by abortion and really do consider it baby murdering. The abortion issue is an emotionally charged one with sincere and passionate feelings on both sides. Labelling all the pro-lifers as disingenuous is unfair.
Most conceptions end in early abortion before the mother even knows she's pregnant, [I have always been surprised how many women don't know this!] but this doesn't bother the pro lifers because the life of the fetus is not ended intentionally, which is understandable even from a sincere anti-choice position, intent matters.
Lol! Yes Bob, and I must admit, you DID just teach me a new word, but 'slaughter' or 'massacre' would have done the trick too, and everyone would have known what you meant.
These people have no problem at all with baby-murdering when it's done en masse in the name of "freedumb!" (a.k.a. the "war on terra"). They also have no problem denying women access to birth control which just increases the number of unwanted pregnancies. So, they have absolutely no solid moral ground to stand on. But that never stops them from pretending to be "moral."
That may be, but if someone gets upset for a false reason... I'm not very sympathetic.
Let me repeat: at least TEN TIMES as many "babies" die of non-implantation as from abortion... and these same fervent save-the-babies folks do not give a rat's ass!
Hypocrisy of that caliber deserves a spotlight!
----
I like words. I know a lot of them, and I use them comfortably. Do you really think I should "talk down"? (That's a serious question.)
And a false reason is anything that goes against your position whether you are right or not.
And that is a natural process that no one can control. In many if not most instances no one even knows it has occurred.
You mean like the hypocracy of BLM protesting the dozens of deaths by pilice while ignoring the thousands who die becayse of Black gang activity?
Why did you repeat that, did you think I didn't understand it the first time? Like I said, there is nothing anyone can do about those abortions, so the sincere pro-lifers focus on the ones that can be stopped, the intentional abortions.
You 'talk down' to everyone, Bob, your desperate need to portray yourself as smarter than everyone else is very transparent, and rather pathetic.
Are you contending that every pro-lifer is against contraception too? Some are. How did I end up defending pro-lifers? Lol, I'm 100% pro-choice, but I still contend that there are many sincere people in the other camp.
Exactly.
When a person gets super-upset by one death but doesn't care about ten deaths... they're hypocrites. When someone defends that attitude, so are they! Or... maybe... they didn't understand. So I repeated, to be sure that you are consciously dismissing all those "dead babies" as unimportant. You seem to have repeated that some dead babies are important but other dead babies are unimportant. So... Your position is clear: dead babies aren't really the topic. Would you like to discuss the real topic?
Your remark about "natural" applies to all deaths except murder. Cancer is "natural". Are you equally dismissive of cancer victims?
O-o-o-o-p-s!
I just realized that the "natural" Reply wasn't you. I apologize.
Do you think BLM are hypocrutes?
I think you'd like to change the topic...
One is intentional , and the other is not.
Someone who accidentally eats a poisonous substance is just as dead as someone who was actively poisoned by another person, but you probably will never see an equal societal reaction to the one as to the other.
Anti-abortion activists are concerned with the actions of cognizant human beings, not biological events beyond the notion of "responsibility'.
I think there are "right to lifers" that are sincere, but as long as science does not define viable life from conception , a compromise that permits early term abortions will inevitably be the law of the land.
True... but irrelevant, IMHO.
All diseases are unintentional, too, but we spend a great amount of money to try to prevent them.
If right-to-lifers were truly worried about "dead babies", they'd be up in arms for urgent medical research into "the Holocaust of non-implantation".
The right-to-life movement isn't about "dead babies". It's about controlling women.
Not necessarily, they apparently make a moral distinction between a volitional action and an 'accident' of nature.
You say there is no "difference", the "baby" is still dead either way, but generally speaking people give more rebuke and condemnation to intentional acts than to accidental ones. That applies in many types of instances, and not just abortion.
John and I agree on the above.
Accepted.
There are definitely people who are sincerely against the intentional destruction of a viable fetus, there are even atheists who are pro-life, so it's not just evangelical Christians. There are also more than just two well-defined camps within this issue, there are degrees of being pro-life or pro-choice. Some people, for example, would be happy with banning abortions after 20 weeks. As a pro-choicer, I may even consider this compromise, provided that every woman has clear and unfettered access to reproductive health care, including abortion.
The "babies" are dead, John!
Are you agreeing with me that "lots of dead babies" isn't really all that important to them? Are you agreeing that their true objective is to control what women are allowed to do?
Absolutely, leno.
Anything after 20 weeks except in the case of medical emergency....no way, Jose!
There have been cases cited that a 24 week baby can live outside the womb. If you want an abortion get one, but do it by four months.
I am pro choice and I really don't care what you do with your body! But, damn, show some morals here.
I think there objective is to prevent women from having abortions because they believe it is immoral and a sin against their God.
US law does not agree with them.
US law said that marriage was between a man and a woman. That did not stop you from protesting and doing everything you could to change that.
Marijuana possession is lllegal in US law. That hasnt stopped you from trying to legalize it.
There are other things that are illegal by us law that you want to change. I guess by your statement though all of that will stop now right?
Then we agree. They don't really care about dead babies; they want to control women.
I have never met a pro-lifer who became upset at the idea that ten times as many "babies" die from non-implantation as from abortion. So... no.
They don't care about the "dead babies". They care about controlling women's behavior.
I have a lot of problems with the premise implied in this article. First let me address this:
"The association with Mr. Moore troubled some women evangelicals who found his accusers to be credible. Two women said that he had sexually molested them when they were teenagers, and others said that he had taken them out on dates or hounded them at work, accusations that Mr. Moore denies."
Evangelicals who are women would be troubled by it. Evidently, it troubled many of them enough to either not vote or vote for Doug Jones. Either way it troubled them quite a bit, since the outcome they helped produce has resulted in a Senator who does not represent their social views and will impact their future and that of their children. What I am very interested in now is how the Washington Post, which helped the accusers make their accusations so decisive in the election, follow up on the complaints of these women?
Something tells me the Post is done with them. It will be interesting to see what these women do next
The purpose of revealing Moore's past was to prevent an ephebophile from becoming a Senator. That was accomplished. There will never be criminal charges. So... I would guess that the episode is closed.
As everyone knows, I VOTED FOR MOORE! I am not an evangelical, but if I were it wouldn't matter.
Alleged!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you read that word? Alleged!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no way that someone is going to accuse me of a crime that I didn't commit and I wouldn't fight back.
Did it ever dawn on some of you that a person in their younger lives may have done something inappropriate, but for 30 to 40 years afterwards has not? They go on to marry, have a family and never deviate from a good life. Their wives don't know, their children don't know.
Why?
He was thrown off the Alabama Supreme Court...twice...
Even if you refuse to believe that he likes pubescent girls... he's a horrible person! He pines for the good old days of... racial slavery...
Oh, Mr. Nelson give me a break here.
Yes, no Supreme Court for him. Once, was putting up his homemade 10 commandments sign, Second, telling Probate Judges not to recognize same sex marriages.
I have an issue. How can the federal government tell a state what their laws will be? Right now, the federal government is telling CA no sanctuary city, but they say "f" it we will do what we want to do and take your law and shove it. Is there any difference? I don't think there is.
My problem is with this woman coming out with this "revelation" now. Why not when he was Supreme Court Judge? It doesn;t make sense to me.
And, I WILL NOT allow anyone to intimidate me when I know I have done no wrong.
This is...
The Supreme Court decides how the basic rights of Americans are to be applied.
To which of the several women are you referring? All of them?
Gee when it concerns things you approve of you scream and shout about states right and the feds cant tell a state what to do. When it is something you dont like, states right be damned.
There were not so many "several women".
The deal.....There was one underage girl. Whose mother, BTW, didn't object. But, lets remember, the original statement by the mother was "no phone in the bedroom". Later, to be revised to a "long cord".
Mr. Nelson, let me put it to you this way. 40 years ago is a hell of a long time ago. A lifetime for some.
The man has a family now. A wife and children. What good was accomplished by bringing this up now whether true or false?
This is difficult for me, but....my two nieces who are like my daughters....one from CA and the other TN....came to visit me. I was caring for my brother who was dying. I drove everyday a two hour round trip to care for him. The very first night they were with me, Kathie, tells me that he sexually abused her. 45 years after the fact. Her sister speaks up to say the same thing, Why? After all of this time why did you choose to tell me this when he is dying? My brother was, also, sexually abused by their dad. One of my nieces died a month after this visit with me from a heart attack at age 52. My brother died five months later.
What did all this accomplish? It left me with a burden of guilt since they did not tell me. Was Kathie vindicated? I don't see how since I am the only one who knows. I have to carry this along with her. He groped her breasts. I never told my brother, so, I don't know.
I refuse to take a side in an allegation.
Ok. I already said we don't need his lust for pubescent girls to know he's a horrible person.
He's nostalgic for slavery. He mixed church and state. He disobeyed the law he swore to uphold. Enough?
No!
Oh, thank you, Leno, That means the world to me. You my man always looking out for me!
I'll always be here to catch you when you fall Mango!
Thank you, Leno!