Tag Archives: Christianity

The Real Christians

As regular readers of my daily rants know, I’ve been hard on the fake “Christians” who dominate MAGA and are most accurately characterized as Christian Nationalists. I have also been emphatic in noting that Christian Nationalism bears little resemblance to the Christianity practiced by several of my friends and some of my family.

I recently had an experience that underscored my conviction that real Christians are very different from the theocrats who currently (mis)use the name.

My husband and I go to our time-shared condominium in Litchfield, South Carolina for a week each July, and we usually drive there. As I have gotten older–and as retirement has given me more flexibility–we’ve broken up that thirteen-hour drive into three days, and added interesting stops along the way. The first of those stops has usually been in Berea, Kentucky, where we stay at the historic Boone Tavern on the lovely campus of Berea College.

Berea College, for those who are unfamiliar with it, is a truly remarkable institution. It is academically excellent. It was founded in 1855 on a work-study model, to serve Appalachian youngsters who could not afford to pay tuition, and it continues to draw preferentially from that area. Most students still graduate without debt thanks to the school’s practice of offering “Tuition Promise” scholarships to all enrollees. (The average debt of those who do leave with academic debt is $4,712, and the most common debt of students who do have debt is $1000.) Fifty-eight percent of the first year students in 2021 were the first in their families to attend college; 29% of that class were African-American and 14% were Hispanic.

Religiously, the college identifies as Christian:

Berea College commits itself to stimulate understanding of the Christian faith and its many expressions and to emphasize the Christian ethic and the motive of service to others. Berea College welcomes people from all religious and non-religious backgrounds, because of our Christian commitment, not in spite of it. (Emphasis theirs)

Berea and Oberlin were the first two colleges in the U.S. to accept both women and Blacks as students, and this year, I was interested to discover that among Berea’s fifteen residence halls is “a gender-inclusive option for students who identify as transgender, non-binary and gender nonconforming.”

I knew much of the school’s history prior to our most recent stay, but a conversation with the server in the bar prompted my observation that the institution is truly Christian–without the quotation marks.

The woman mixing my drink (yes, they have alcohol on the premises) responded to my verbal appreciation of the college with a reference to its history. In 1904, Kentucky’s legislature passed the Day Law, a measure aimed directly at Berea’s inclusion of Black students. The law made integrated institutions illegal in the state. According to the server, Berea proceeded to obey the law by sending all of its then-enrolled Black students to Oberlin, and paying their tuition there.

I was astonished, and when I went up to my room, I googled the issue to see whether she had embellished it. Sure enough–in the wake of the Day Law, Berea had sent Black students either to all-Black schools or to Oberlin, and had paid their tuition. It evidently continued that practice until the law was repealed in the early 1950s.

(As an aside, the server was also extremely dismissive of JD Vance and his purported emergence from Appalachia…I liked her a lot!)

But back to the question of “real” Christianity.

The founder of Berea College was a man named John Gregg Fee. According to Wikipedia, Fee and his colleagues believed that “God made of one blood all peoples of the earth,” and that belief became the school’s motto.

One of the school’s original bylaws stated that “This college shall be under an influence strictly Christian.” but–unusual for the time– the term ‘Christian’ was not defined in terms of baptism or other theological tenets.

It was assumed that Christians would be marked by ‘a righteous practice and Christian experience.’ For Fee and his abolitionist supporters, slavery, sectarianism, and exclusion on the basis of social and economic differences were examples of ‘wrong’ institutions and practices that promoted schism and disobedience to God. These sins, left unamended, would prevent Berea from being a place of acceptance, welcome, and love.” Therefore, character became the chief qualification for admission, placing education within reach of all who desired its benefits.

Wouldn’t it be lovely if today’s publicly pious “Christians” emphasized character and loving-kindness? America under that definition of a “Christian Nation” would be a place of “acceptance, welcome, and love.”

Unfortunately, those traits are utterly foreign to Trump and MAGA…

Comments

This!

As regular readers of my daily rants know, I’m not a fan of organized religion–quite the contrary. And I’m definitely not a fan of the faux “Christianity”– more properly identified as Christian Nationalism–that permeates the MAGA movement.

But I am a fan of some actual Christians–especially the members of the clergy desperately working to remind their colleagues and congregants of the basic messages of the Christian faith. I have several personal friends who fall into that category, and I follow a couple of others on social media. One of the latter is John Pavlovitz, and I was so impressed with a recent “sermon” he delivered via the Internet that I’m going to quote rather copiously from it.

The title of the piece was “No, I Won’t Agree To Disagree About You Supporting Trump. You’re Just Wrong.” The ensuing message did two important things: it underlined the ways in which MAGA Republicanism is inconsistent with traditional Christian teaching; and it explained what all those nice people who want to bridge American political disagreements fail to understand–these arguments aren’t political. They are deeply moral–and accordingly, unbridgeable.

As Pavlovitz writes, we can’t simply “agree to disagree” because that would be tantamount to a declaration that “we both have equally valid opinions, that we’re each mutually declaring those opinions not so divergent that they cannot be abided; that our relationship is of greater value than the differences”–and as he says, that really isn’t an accurate description.

We are not simply declaring mismatched preferences regarding something inconsequential. We’re not talking about who has the best offensive line in the NFL, or whether Van Halen was better with Dave or Sammy, or about what craft beer pairs best with a cheesesteak, or about the sonic differences of CDs and vinyl. On such matters (though I will provide spirited debate), I can tolerate dissension.

We’re not even talking about clear misalignments on very important things: how to best address climate change or what will fix our healthcare system or how to reduce our national debt or what it will take to bring racial equity. Those subjects, while critically important, still have room for constructive debate and differing solutions. They are mendable fractures.

But this, this runs far deeper and into the marrow of who we each are.

At this point, with the past few years as a resume, your alignment with the former president means that we are fundamentally disconnected on what is morally acceptable—and I’ve simply seen too much to explain that away or rationalize your intentions or give you the benefit of the doubt any longer.

Pavlovitz understands what allegiance to Trump and MAGA tells us about those loyalists: that they don’t value the lives of people of color or women, that they distrust/dismiss science, and that they are willing to distort and betray the faith they loudly profess.

I now can see how pliable your morality is, the kinds of compromises you’re willing to make, the ever-descending bottom you’re following into, in order to feel victorious in a war you don’t even know why you’re fighting.

That’s why I need you to understand that this isn’t just a schism on one issue or a single piece of legislation, as those things would be manageable. This isn’t a matter of politics or preference. This is a pervasive, sprawling, saturating separation about the way we see the world and what we value and how we want to move through this life.

Agreeing to disagree with you in these matters, would mean silencing myself and more importantly, betraying the people who bear the burdens of your political affiliations— and this is not something I’m willing to do. Our relationship matters greatly to me, but if it has to be the collateral damage of standing with them, I’ll have to see that as acceptable.

Your devaluing of black lives is not an opinion.
Your acceptance of falsehoods is not an opinion.
Your defiance of facts in a pandemic is not an opinion.
Your hostility toward immigrants is not an opinion.
These are fundamental heart issues.

As he concludes:

I believe you’re wrong in ways that are harming people.
You’re wrong to deny the humanity of other human beings.
You’re wrong to justify your affiliation with this violence.
You’re wrong to embrace a movement built on the worst parts of who we are.

Pavlovitz refuses to “agree to disagree” about such profound moral differences.

To which this atheist says: AMEN.

Comments

Kudos

The news isn’t all depressing, and it’s important to note the positive as well as the negative.

For example, every once in a while we get a reminder that there are a lot of admirable, authentic Christians out there, and they’re very different from the political posturers who use religion in service of something very different. In the run-up to Texas’ passage of a (clearly unconstitutional) bill requiring public school classrooms to post the Ten Commandments, one of those genuine Christians took issue with the performatively pious legislator sponsoring the measure.

He began by pointing to multiple ways in which the Texas legislature failed to live up to the dictates of those same Commandments, and concluded:

I know you’re a devout Christian, and so am I. This bill to me is not only unconstitutional, it’s not only un-American; I think it is also deeply un-Christian.

And I say that because I believe this bill is idolatrous. I believe it is exclusionary and I believe it is arrogant. And those three things in my reading of the Gospel are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Jesus. You probably know Matthew 6:5 when Jesus says, “Don’t be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners. When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your father who is in secret.”

A religion that has to force people to put up a poster to prove its legitimacy is a dead religion. And it’s not one that I want to be a part of. It’s not one that I think I am a part of.

You know that in Scripture, it says faith without works is what? Is dead. My concern is instead of bringing a bill that will feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, we instead mandate that people put up a poster and we both follow a teacher, a rabbi who said, “Don’t let the law get in the way of loving your neighbor.”

Loving your neighbor is the most important law. It is the summation of all the law and all the prophets. I would submit to you that our neighbor also includes the Hindu student who sits in a classroom, the Buddhist student who sits in a classroom, and an atheist student who sits in a classroom. And my question to you is, does this bill truly love those students?

It was Texas, so the bill passed anyway.

Speaking of public school classrooms, the recent announcement by Jennifer McCormick that she is running for governor of Indiana was another bit of very good news.

McCormick first won statewide office as a Republican, serving as Superintendent of Public Instruction. As Republican legislators became more and more divorced from sanity and unrepresentative of their constituents, especially with respect to public education, McCormick left the GOP. 

In her announcement, McCormick “tells it like it is.”

“I’m running for governor because our political leaders have lost sight of the challenges they were elected to solve. They are defunding and politicizing our schools, burdening us with the nation’s highest gas tax, taking our rights away, and standing by as we pay the highest health care costs in the nation.  It’s time for a leader who will put Hoosiers first. Together, we can restore common sense and put an end to the divisiveness that’s pulling our state backward,”

 “I know we can move our state forward by fighting for our public schools, making health care accessible and affordable, and bringing good paying jobs to main streets across Indiana. I loved serving our state and look forward to the opportunity to continue meeting with Hoosiers who believe it’s time for change.”

The Indiana Capital Chronicle also quoted McCormick

“I’m running because it’s time Hoosiers are put first, protecting our rights and our freedoms. It’s time Hoosiers have a voice, and a leader who believes in empowering them to make their own decisions,” she said, also emphasizing Indiana’s need for “a champion for a high quality education system.”

That means increased access to childcare, universal pre-K, better K-12 funding and “beyond high school training and education.” She also vowed to expand “accessible and affordable health care,” and to focus on “safe streets” and “safe neighborhoods.”

As Superintendent, McCormick pushed back against the GOP super-majority as it persisted in attacking public education. She had the spine  to leave what the Republican party had become. She would be an awesome governor–and she deserves the votes of every teacher, every woman who wants to control her own body, everyone who has an LGBTQ+  friend or family member…the list goes on.

If enough genuine Christians and actual conservatives refuse to support what the GOP has become, America might begin the long trip back to sanity and responsible governance.

Comments

Michael Gerson’s Jeremiad

Students of early American history will recognize the term jeremiad, a favored form of sermon delivered by Puritan pastors of the time. Wikipedia tells us that a jeremiad is “a long literary work lamenting the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective.” The term comes from the prophet Jeremiah, who catalogued Israel’s fall from fidelity and warned of the horrible judgments to come.

I wouldn’t apply the term “invective” to the recent, lengthy essay in the Washington Post by Michael Gerson, but I would definitely  call it a jeremiad.

Gerson is best known as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, and as a devout Evangelical Christian. Along with other intellectually-honest Republicans, he has been appalled by Donald Trump, and like other genuine Christians, disheartened by the embrace of Trump by those who claim the Evangelical label. He is especially distressed by the fact that “much of what considers itself Christian America has assumed the symbols and identity of white authoritarian populism.”

Gerson’s essay is long, and it is definitely worth reading in its entirety. This post cannot do it justice. He begins by recognizing that many conservative religious people feel disrespected and defensive, and believe that their values are under assault by government, big business, media and academia.

Leaders in the Republican Party have fed, justified and exploited conservative Christians’ defensiveness in service to an aggressive, reactionary politics. This has included deadly mask and vaccine resistance, the discrediting of fair elections, baseless accusations of gay “grooming” in schools, the silencing of teaching about the United States’ history of racism, and (for some) a patently false belief that Godless conspiracies have taken hold of political institutions…

The political alignment with MAGA activists has given exposure and greater legitimacy to once-fringe ideas, including Confederate nostalgia, white nationalism, antisemitism, replacement theory and QAnon accusations of satanic child sacrifice by liberal politicians.

Gerson acknowledges the influence of population density and the rural/urban divide on patterns of belief– and the political reality that America’s electoral mechanisms skew in favor of geography over population. But his essay is mostly concerned with the damage MAGA Republicanism is doing to Christianity.

Strangely, evangelicals have broadly chosen the company of Trump supporters who deny any role for character in politics and define any useful villainy as virtue. In the place of integrity, the Trump movement has elevated a warped kind of authenticity — the authenticity of unfiltered abuse, imperious ignorance, untamed egotism and reflexive bigotry…

Conservative Christians’ beliefs on the nature of politics, and the content of their cultural nightmares, are directly relevant to the future of our whole society, for a simple reason: The destinies of rural and urban America are inextricably connected. It matters greatly if evangelicals in the wide, scarlet spaces are desensitized to extremism, diminished in decency and badly distorting the meaning of Christianity itself — as I believe many are.

To grasp how, and why, it’s important to begin at the beginning.

Gerson follows that sentence with a lengthy history of Jesus’ background and teachings- his preaching against religious hypocrisy, his welcoming of “social outcasts,” and a “future age in which God’s sovereignty would be directly exercised on Earth.”

What brought me to consider these historical matters is a disturbing realization: In both public perception and evident reality, many White, conservative Christians find themselves on the wrong side of the most cutting indictments delivered by Jesus of Nazareth.

Christ’s revolt against the elites could hardly be more different from the one we see today. Conservative evangelicalism has, in many ways, become the kind of religious tradition against which followers of Jesus were initially called to rebel. And because of the pivotal role of conservative Christians in our politics, this irony is a matter of urgency.

He follows those paragraphs with an indictment of Christian Nationalism, concluding that

Evangelicals broadly confuse the Kingdom of God with a Christian America, preserved by thuggish politicians who promise to prefer their version of Christian rights and enforce Christian values. The political calculation of conservative Christians is simple, and simply wrong.

Gerson goes on to list numerous ways in which that calculation is wrong–and dangerous to democracy.

As I said at the outset of this post, this is a lengthy essay. It is also and obviously a product of considerable distress over the political grievances that have distorted and displaced authentic faith. As he concludes, “It is difficult for me to understand why so many believers have turned down a wedding feast to graze in political dumpsters.”

Gerson’s jeremiad puts him firmly within the camp of those of us who have been warning Americans about the dangers of Christian Nationalism–and reminding them that Christian Nationalism is very different from actual Christianity.

I admire Gerson’s attempt, but somehow I doubt the Christian Nationalists will listen.

Comments

Christian Nationalism

I frequently inveigh against Christian Nationalism without explaining exactly what it is. In the wake of Marjorie Taylor Green’s recent declaration identifying herself as a Christian Nationalist, I decided I should be more explicit about what that label means–because it doesn’t simply indicate a religious identity.

As the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty recently wrote,

Christian nationalism is a political ideology and cultural framework that merges Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s promise of religious freedom. It relies heavily on a false narrative of America as a “Christian nation,” founded by Christians in order to privilege Christianity. This mythical history betrays the work of the framers to create a federal government that would remain neutral when it comes to religion, neither promoting nor denigrating it — a deliberate break with the state-established religions of the colonies.

Though not new, Christian nationalism has been exploited in recent years by politicians like former President Donald Trump to further an “us vs. them” mentality and send a message that only Christians can be “real” Americans.

An article in The Week pointed to the substantial role played by Christian Nationalists in the insurrection on January 6th. As one observer reported  “Crosses were everywhere that day in D.C., on flags and flagpoles, on signs and clothes, around necks, and erected above the crowd,”  Bible verses were plentiful in the crowd, and a number of rioters actually paused for prayer during the attack. One rioter recorded herself justifying her participation by saying  “We are a godly country, and we are founded on godly principles. And if we do not have our country, nothing else matters.”

A 2021 survey by the Pew Research Center identified 77 percent of Republican respondents as “church-state integrationists” who hold a variety of views “consistent” with Christian nationalism. That might be overstating things somewhat. A 2017 survey found that one-in-five Americans hold such views. The scholars at Political Behavior found that “support for the Capitol attacks is a minority position among any slice of the American religious landscape.” But they also noted that 17.7 percent “of white weekly churchgoers fall into the joint top quartile of justification of violence, Christian nationalist beliefs, perceived victimhood, white identity, and support for QAnon.” That percentage — while relatively small — “would represent millions of individuals.”

The article noted that Christian Nationalism is gaining an “increasing foothold ” in Republican politics. Greene and  Boebert are two of the more explicit proponents of Christian nationalism, but less well known members of the party are also adherents. “Doug Mastriano — a former Army officer who chartered buses to ferry protesters to Washington D.C. on Jan. 6, and who has declared the separation of church and state a “myth” —  is the GOP nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, and is now running a close race with his Democratic opponent.”

What is truly terrifying is that Christian Nationalism is being normalized. Republicans who shared the ideology  but previously denied the label are increasingly willing to admit to it: as the linked article notes, ” Marjorie Taylor Greene might have made news by openly embracing the term, but she might not be that unusual.”

As the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty wrote,

I care about dismantling Christian nationalism both because I’m a practicing Christian and because I’m a patriotic American — and no, those identities are not the same. As Christians, we can’t allow Greene, Boebert or Trump to distort our faith without a fight.

We must speak loudly when our faith is used as a political tool, we must uproot it from our own churches and communities and we must form alliances with religious minorities and the nonreligious — who suffer the impact of Christian nationalism the most.

Religion, and Christianity in particular, has flourished in America not because of government aid or favoritism, but for the opposite reason: religion’s freedom from government control. Government involvement in religious affairs doesn’t aid the free exercise of religion. And as Christians, we are called to love our neighbors rather than make them feel unwelcome in their own country…

Christian lawmakers don’t need to erase their faith from politics. My fellow Baptist, Georgia Democrat Sen. Rev. Raphael Warnock, has modeled what it looks like for a pastor to serve in Congress without insisting on a privileged place for Christianity in law and society….

It’s not just Christian political leaders that need to do better, it’s all of us. Earlier this summer, I joined a group of prominent Christian leaders in launching the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign. More than 25,000 Christians have joined the campaign as we seek to elevate an alternative Christian public witness.

The Christian Nationalist takeover of one of America’s major political parties poses an enormous threat to us all.

Comments