Why Evangelicals Don't Abandon Trump (But Why They Should...)

I’ve read so many great pieces over the past year written by- and about- thoughtful Evangelical Christians grappling with the fact that President Trump- an out-and-proud narcissistic bully- has so much respect and support from their fellow Evangelicals.

Much of this writing has sincerely and honestly been trying to re-imagine Evangelicalism beyond the socio-political ditch into which these writers feel it has driven itself into, and conceive of an American Evangelicalism that is more open, inclusive, honest and, well, Christ-like.

I was raised in the Evangelical Christian subculture and worked within it for a good chunk of my adult life. While I have not identified as an Evangelical Christian for about 25 years now- finding my home in the liturgical, the contemplative, and the silent- I have a great amount of respect and affection for many of my brothers and sisters in the Evangelical community and applaud their efforts to think outside the box that previous generations of Evangelicals have constructed around them.

But outside of those voices, the vast majority of American Evangelicals (specifically white Evangelicals; Evangelicals of colour have been- not unsurprisingly- unmoved by Trumpism) appear to be standing rock-solid behind  the President, a thrice-married, utterly-irreligious, hedonistic, profane, vain, corrupt, bullying, bankrupt gambling tycoon.

This seems so incongruous to so many and has fascinated and dismayed many commentators, all of whom seem to be waiting for the moment when Evangelicals wake up in horror, realize what they’ve hitched themselves to, and turn against Trump, hastening his demise.

I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I think I have an insight into why.

To understand where I’m coming from, you have to imagine one of the oldest narratives in human history, found in just about every culture’s myths, epics, and sagas: the opportunity to get everything you want.

 It’s the moment in the tale when a character engaged in an epic quest is approached by a god or a magical entity who has the ability to make it possible for the character to achieve and acquire everything that character wants or needs- wealth, power, love, success, or victory.

The god or entity can absolutely deliver. All the character has to do is grasp it…

… but (and it’s always a huge, monumental, epic ‘but’) there is always one thing; one small, apparently-simple detail that the character must remember to do or not do- leave the party before  midnight; don’t ever get off the horse; don’t ever look back; don’t open the box; never say a specific phrase- or they will lose everything.

As the one small detail seems so simple and apparently irrelevant, the character inevitably agrees. But just as inevitably, they are tripped up by that one, simple thing and lose everything.

When we heard these stories as children, it all seemed so unfair. I mean, who *wouldn’t* go for the deal? Why did the god or entity include that one, stupid proviso?

What we didn’t realize was that the point of these stories was to teach us about human frailty, hubris, or simply that sometimes bad things happen to good people. We can never be in control of everything, the stories seemed to say; our lives and our destinies are never completely our own. Don’t try to shortcut your way to victory. Keep a reasonable account of yourself. Be realistic. Be humble. Be wise.

Well, the majority of the Evangelical movement in America have been engaged in a quest for decades to re-shape and re-mould America (though they would use the language of restoration). Basically, decades before Trump, they were dreaming of making America ‘great’ again, but as seen through their religious lens- holy, chaste, godly, righteous…

In 2016, they got offered the chance to win, win big, win everything. 

Their quest had many elements within it, many of which often paralleled the social and political aims of other demographic groups. But there was one issue that was almost exclusively theirs, and on that I’d argue was the central hub around which all other elements revolved :

abortion on demand.

Severely curtailing (if not outright overturning) Roe v. Wade, the 1973 US Supreme Court’s landmark decision that effectively legalized a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, was and is the Holy Grail of American Evangelicalism. 

Efforts began slowly in the mid-70’s; President Carter, though an Evangelical, stood by the decision and got no serious, sustained flak for it. It was not until the Reagan-era 80’s and the rise of Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, and Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue that the American ‘pro-life’ movement slammed into high gear. 

This was the beginning of a long campaign to put real political power into the hands of Evangelical Christians by getting their issues into the Republican Party platform, and overturning Roe v. Wade was a policy linchpin.

Roe v. Wade at this point began to be given the descriptive characteristics of a holocaust, innocent, unborn children, butchered by the millions. Anyone who defended abortion was depraved, the doctor who performed one was a murderer, and any woman who had one was a monster, sacrificing an innocent life for freedom and pleasure.

Make no mistake; that was the only explanation I ever heard for why this went on, and the very cruelty of it compounded the horror. The life of the baby overrode any other explanation or circumstance. The mother was alive and the baby was dead. The horror, to the pro-lifer, was self-evident.

Abortion was Satanism at its most naked and most cruel.

Mainstream Republicans noticed what was brewing and cautiously began a courtship with this new insurgency, seeking to harness this growing and hugely dedicated new demographic- the ‘Religious Right’. However, the mainstream Republican machine didn’t embrace the Evangelicals’ moral crusade, at least not in the same way. They saw the Evangelicals as an asset, one constituency group of among many, there to be tapped as part of greater strategies. 

Republicans made many of the right noises, and did things that Evangelicals liked. But because most of the Washington Republican machine didn’t think about abortion in the same way as their Evangelical base did, it was never going to be as high on the ‘to do’ list as Evangelicals would want it to be.

The weakness of the Evangelicals’ position, unfortunately, was similar to any dependable constituency in a two-party system: they had nowhere else to go- particularly in the Clinton-dominated 90’s- and they began to suspect the Republican machine was taking them for granted… which was probably true.

Each election cycle, Evangelicals rallied to the Republican candidates with the best Evangelical bona fides- Michelle Bachmann, Ben Carson, the seemingly-perennial Alan Keyes, even Pat Robertson himself back in the day- but dutifully and sometimes grudgingly voted for the Washington-connected center-right moderate Republican that got the nomination. 

Abortion on demand- seen by the majority of Evangelicals as America’s greatest moral failing- remained on the books and (it appeared) unassailable.

But Evangelicals were playing a very, very long game- longer than any of their detractors understand…  That's because the issues that they most care about- and abortion crystallizes that like no other issue- are timeless and non-negotiable. Abortion is murder. Roe v. Wade is demonic. What they want is no mere political victory, but a spiritual one, directed by God who, though he works in mysterious ways, absolutely assures them the victory.

Which pretty much brings us to the present moment, and in Evangelical terms, what a present moment it is…

President Trump (who, to be fair, wasn’t their first choice; they'd have much preferred Carson or Cruz) has given Evangelicals more of what they’ve actually wanted in a year and a half than every Republican administration in the past forty:

He’s been aggressively vocal about Christianity’s supremacy over other faiths; 

He’s been outspoken about culture war battles such as the ‘War on Christmas;

he’s moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, aligning himself with the most intransigent, militaristic, and theocratic elements within Israel and the US;

he’s packed the federal courts with ideological conservatives;

And crucially, he has brought Evangelicals within striking distance of the ultimate prize: a solidly ideologically-conservative US Supreme Court, capable of finally- at long last- ending abortion on demand.

Trump himself is not an Evangelical, nor has he shown any religious tendencies whatsoever, nor indeed (it could be effectively argued from his own sordid history) does he care or even have any particular opinion one way or another about any of these issues beyond seeing them as chances to aggrandize himself personally... but his administration includes die-hard conservative Evangelicals in Jeff Sessions and Betsy Devos, and he's had an open-door policy for Jerry Falwell Jr., Franklin Graham, and other powerful right-wing Evangelical leaders who have been able to steer his erratic ship toward their own fortunes, much to the delight of the average Evangelical voter.  

Simply put, for a significant majority of white Evangelicals, Trump is delivering, and in ways that no one has ever politically and culturally delivered to them before.

Trump offers victory... evidence, to many, that for all his faults and foibles, he must be the instrument of God.

With that in mind, do you really think Evangelicals will suddenly turn on Trump because he says mean and stupid things?Do you think they’re going to simply surrender a forty-year war because Trump was rude to Christine Blasey Ford?

Don’t be ridiculous. This is the win of all wins…

But (and here comes that huge, monumental, epic ‘but’…)

like the hero in the myths, there is a price to pay for all this, a ruthless and very disturbing bargain made:

It is nothing less than surrendering any moral authority to speak of the Gospel of Jesus as it is understood from the biblical text... all for the chance to 'restore' America to the image that the Trump-supporting Evangelicals envision. 

Trump insults and bullies the poorer, the weaker, the less-attractive;

He praises the strong, the supremacists, the prejudiced;

He defends the oppressor, the suppressor, the aggressive;

He lies, and lies, and lies;

He is the antithesis of every characteristic that Jesus in the biblical text lays out for those who follow him;

He is the antithesis- at times almost comically so- of every attribute that St. Paul considered evidence of the working of the spirit of God in a person's life- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control...

Needless to say (and I'm sure no one will be shocked to hear it), I just don’t see Jesus in this.

Needless to say, I don’t see the Gospel of the biblical text- food for the poor, sight for the blind, release for the prisoners, freedom for the captives, life for the lifeless, a voice for the voiceless- in this.

This is not interpreting the Gospel; it's not spinning, finessing, or managing it… This is abandoning it.

Jesus’s words in the Gospel of Mark recently came to my mind:

‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 

‘For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel I preach will save it.

‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 

‘Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 

‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.’

If Evangelicals are being forced to choose between the Christ of the Gospel and the adulterous and the sinful- as I believe they are- they risk gaining their 'whole world'- their 'restored America'- at the price of their soul.

That price is too high…

… and blessings on those Evangelicals trying to point that out.

But as to the rest turning on Trump? No time soon, I fear…

Ireland, Pope Francis, and the Death (and Rebirth) of the Catholic Church

So… As I write this, Pope Francis has arrived in Ireland,

An Ireland- so the media has reminded us ad nauseum- is far different from the Ireland that John Paul II visited in 1979.

I know what they’re trying to say, and some of the commentary says it very well. But at a fundamental level, it strikes me as somewhat lazy thinking. Name me one country that isn’t a lot different than it was forty years ago. I mean, even North Korea is significantly poorer…

And, as is often said, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even with the decline of Catholic belief and practice in Ireland, 78.3% of the Republic still choose to identify as Catholic, as do 45% of the North.

Granted, we’re not Catholics the way the Church wants us to be Catholics.

But- and this is my topic today- after the way this Church treated us for decades, it truly is a miracle any of us call ourselves Catholics at all.

I say this because of my firmly-held belief that, if we want to do Catholic theology in Ireland and Northern Ireland with any integrity, we must grapple- and I do mean really and truly grapple- with the violent abuse inflicted by the Catholic Church in Ireland on the smallest, weakest, poorest, least influential, and least powerful… and that it did so with the collusion of the Irish state.

This is the social reality into which Francis stepped when he de-planed yesterday.

When we talk about the abuse scandals that have been exposed in Ireland and around the globe, because of the vast amount written about it in the past week, it’s easy to glaze over and say, ‘yes, yes, I know. It’s appalling’… We hear the stories of individual victims and it becomes small and personally tragic, tinged with sentimentality.

Make no mistake- the individual accounts are horrible; each victim has had to survive in their own way.

But when I was doing my Masters, I took the opportunity to read- in their entirety- the 2009 reports of the Commission of investigation conducted by the Irish government into the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin (usually referred to as the ‘Murphy Report’ after presiding Irish judge Yvonne Murphy) and the ‘Ryan Report’ from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (CICA), charged with investigating the extent and effects of abuse on children in Ireland from 1936 onwards.

To put the reports into some kind of context, while doing my Masters, I also read- in their entirety- UN reports of the use of systemic torture in Apartheid-era South Africa, the use of torture and murder against political dissidents in Central and South America in the 70’s and 80’s, and the use of concentration camps and genocide during the Balkan wars of the 90’s.

Through the lens of my expertise on these issues, I feel confident in saying that what happened in Ireland and Northern Ireland can be spoken about in the same breath.

Reading the reports was- and I choose my words carefully- like staring the Antichrist full in the face.

Reading them, I felt that I understood why someone as compassionate as the Jesus of the biblical text would suggest such a cruel and unusual use for a millstone. 

What the Murphy and Ryan reports exposed was evil;

Over 800 known serial abusers;

Over 200 Catholic institutions;

Over 35 years;

Over the length and breadth of the nation;

Hundreds of industrial schools, Magdalene laundries, mother and baby homes;

Abuse, neglect and death not sporadic or opportunistic;

Not a tragic failure of the system, but, horrifically, the system itself.

This was a gulag.

None of this is ancient history. The modern Irish state only dates to 1921. 

As late as last year, evidence emerged of a mass grave with the remains of 796 children on the former site of a mother and baby home in Tuam, Co. Galway. The Sisters of Bon Secours, the religious order who ran the home, through the efforts of the PR firm they hired, denied the existence of the mass unmarked grave for two years. It was only through the dogged efforts of a local historian who meticulously followed up the fact that there were nearly 800 deaths of children in Tuam between 1925 and 1961, but graves for only two, that we now know the scale of the horror.

These were the unwanted, uncared-for children of ‘fallen’ women, women and children simply seen as ecclesial detritus.

All of the horror is compounded by the Church’s reaction, which has been the very embodiment of the word ‘inadequate’.

First, there was silence. Then, where there had been silence, there has been noise;

Obfuscation, stonewalling, non-cooperation, platitudes, and rationalizations, making many of us, heads cradled in our hands, beg, 

'PleaseinthenameofChristwillyoushutupandfuckoff?' 

In light of all this, it has been wondered, what will the Pope say?

Today, while saying Mass at Phoenix Park, the Pope begged forgiveness- from God and, ostensibly, the Irish people.  

I love Pope Francis; I truly do. But what he said was not enough; not nearly, remotely enough.

The Church has not repented. Worse, it has not mourned.

Rather, it has managed.

It has given broad, universal apologies, tried to ‘draw a line’ under the issue, put policies in place. But no financial compensation, no access to records for the victims’ families, no memorials, no masses for the dead souls…

For its part, the Irish government makes shocked noises and points appalled- APPALLED!- fingers at the Catholic hierarchy, but has been very careful so as not to have to address the complicity and collusion of the courts, the police, and the civil service.

It was they who, at the foundation of the modern Irish state, handed the schools, the hospitals, and entire social welfare apparatus to the Church who, we now know, ran them like an authoritarian, theocratic social experiment.

In short, what did the Irish state know, and when did they know it?

This is the Ireland to which Francis has come.

And yes, it is a very different Ireland to the one visited by John Paul II.

The dictatorship is over. The monolithic, imperial, Holy Catholic Church of the past is gone forever… and most Irish Catholics don’t mourn its passing.

The edifice endures, of course, frantically trying to save and salvage itself.

It still runs the schools and the hospitals;

It still dares to chide and to lecture us, grasping the remaining rags of its moral authority, hoping (in vain) to keep us from voting for marriage equality and the repeal of the 8^th Amendment banning abortion.

Millions of self-professed Catholic People voted overwhelmingly for both, saying, in effect, 'Don’t you ever again tell me what is right, good, or appropriate for my life, my nation, or my family, ever.’

So… How do we do Irish Catholic theology with integrity in the shadow of the mass grave in Tuam?

With all due respect to what the Holy Father did say, what do I wish he had said?

I give you a mystery:

What would happen if he had said, ‘We have sinned;

‘We are sorry;

‘We humbly repent,

‘And as penance, we will shut ourselves down, collectively give up our vocation, sell all we have and give the money to the poor, the abused, the victims, and the survivors.

‘God forgive us.

‘God bless you.

‘Goodbye’?

The Church would end.

But through its self-destruction, through this self-immolation, I wonder if, in time, the Church might be reborn…

Those of us who weekly drag ourselves dejectedly to 11am Mass, as well as those who long ago stopped dragging themselves to Mass, now that there wasn’t one to drag ourselves to, might feel a new stirring.

Over time, as has happened in these islands for millennia, men and women would feel the call of God.

They would pray and they would serve.

They would heal each other’s bodies and souls.

They would meet together over bread and wine and feel God in their midst.

And each morning, as the first of us did, they would face the rising sun and worship the three-in-one, singing,

‘As it was in the beginning, it is now an ever shall be.’

The Church might be reborn…

For at the heart of the Christian faith is rebirth- life from lifelessness.

The writer of the Gospel of John has Jesus say,

Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains a single grain;

but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Those who love their life lose it. And those who regard the life of this world as nothing will keep it for eternal life.

The Irish Catholic Church must die… But it must die as Christ died.

It is only by doing so that it can fully be the Body of Christ, given for many.

The presence of evil and sin does not mean that there is no God.

It was God who raised the Body of Christ to life. I believe that God wishes to raise The Catholic Church- the Body of Christ- to life.

For what shall it profit the Church to maintain a crumbling façade and lose its soul?

It is the God of salvation who, in Christ, gives salvation.

The Church can be saved.

But it must die.

It's the only way to live...

The Wise King and the Foolish King: A Parable...

There was once a king who ruled over a large and powerful nation. The king was wise and intellectually curious, literate and well-spoken. He gave much time to the affairs of his nation, and he had a reputation for thoughtfulness and consideration. All enjoyed his company; his wit, humour, and conversation were renowned.

One day, his military leaders told him that his enemy- a dangerous and ruthless warlord, whose militia had committed great violence throughout the region-  was nearby, hiding in a densely-populated city in the neighbouring country. Now this country was weaker than the king’s country- unstable, poorer and with a very small army. They were unaware of the presence of the warlord in their territory, and even if they had known, it was doubtful that they would have been able to capture him.

The king listened thoughtfully to his generals. They told him that every moment of hesitation risked the warlord slipping away to attack again, putting the whole region at risk. But with a quick and forceful attack of mounted horsemen armed with arrows and spears, the warlord could be killed… but because of the nature of the city, the generals said, innocent life might also be lost.    

The king listened attentively. He then said to the generals, ‘I must think carefully before making a decision. How much time may I have?’

‘No more time than one hour’, they told the king, ‘lest the warlord slip away in the crowds and out of our reach.’

The king was visibly troubled. The thought that any innocent life should be lost grieved him deeply. The king spent the entire hour alone with his thoughts. He imagined the sorrow of men at the death of their children, and wives at the death of their husbands. Yet was the price of the few innocent lives not worth paying for the many lives saved? Was it not better for the entire region to be free from the fear of the warlord’s violence?

At the end of the hour, the king appeared again, his face twisted with sorrow. With tears in his eyes, he told his generals to launch the attack. They did so, sending ten highly-skilled mounted soldiers at high speed toward the warlord’s lair.

The king waited anxiously for news of the attack. Soon, his generals came to him saying that the warlord was dead. ‘But the news is not all good’, they told him. ‘Very close to the warlord’s location, a wedding party was being held, the wedding of a poor man’s beloved only daughter. As our soldiers charged, several guests, as well as the poor man’s daughter, fell under the horse’s hooves, killing them instantly. Indeed, our soldiers have reported seeing the poor man holding his daughter’s lifeless body, weeping greatly in the street.’

Upon hearing this, the king wept bitterly and was inconsolable. He took no food or drink, and refused to be seen for three days.

After some time, this king was no more, and another king rose to the throne. This king was foolish and disliked learning, reading very little and speaking crudely. He gave little thought or time to the affairs of his nation, and he had a reputation for distraction and inattentiveness. Many of his advisers disliked his company; he was thin-skinned, took offense easily and was suspicious of all who dared disagree with him.

One day, his military leaders told him that his enemy- an ally of the dangerous and ruthless warlord killed by the previous king-  was nearby, hiding in the same densely-populated city in the neighbouring country.

The king listened with irritation to his generals. ‘Why do you waste my time with long speeches about foreigners about whom I care nothing? Is not our enemy within reach? Order the attack!’ The general’s did so, as before.

The king then went to his other palace on the coast of the country to enjoy the cool air. After waiting for the king a full day in the capital, his general’s traveled to the coastal palace to give him news of the attack, waiting many hours for an audience while the king enjoyed himself feasting with wealthy friends. They informed him that the warlord was dead. ‘But the news is not all good’, they told him. ‘Very close to the warlord’s location, a widow was eating a meal with her only son. As our soldiers charged, one of their arrows went through the window of the house, killing the son. Indeed, our soldiers have reported seeing the widow holding her son’s lifeless body, weeping greatly.’

Upon hearing this, the king did not even look up in their direction ‘Again, you waste my time with news of people for whom I care nothing. My enemy is dead and I appear strong! Now leave me alone with my feasting and entertainment!’

When news of the king’s reaction reached those who had loved the former king, they were outraged. ‘Truly’, they said, ‘the former king was the better king. Did he not think carefully before acting, and did he not weep bitterly at the news of the innocent’s death?’

But a mystic, who knew of all these matters and had been listening to them, rebuked them. ‘Does a poor man take comfort that his daughter was killed by a wise man and not by a fool? Does a widow wish that her son was murdered by a righteous man rather than an evil man?

Do not place your hopes in any great man. Misery inflicted by a wise man is as bitter as the misery inflicted by an imbecile.’