In my last post, I made a few comments regarding two posts Peter Enns recently put out regarding a few “MAGA pastors.” And while I agree with him for the most part in his criticism of these pastors, it got me thinking about what I feel is an underlying problem within Evangelicalism and ex-Evangelicalism alike: both groups view their own partisan politics as the outworking of their faith. Now, obviously this does not mean anyone who has clear political views is problematic or partisan. When I look at my own political views, I think I am more conservative. But then here’s the rub: a lot of my stances that are considered conservative—and labelled “MAGA” by partisan progressives!—would have been mainline Democrat positions in the 90s. In a strange twist of things, I think I am more “liberal” on a number of issues than I used to be, but I have been accused of being “MAGA” or Maga-adjacent by certain people because of those very issues.
What does that tell you? I’m not sure, but I have some theories. Let me start with this observation: objectively speaking, the rise of Donald Trump in politics has led to a complete obliteration of the old lines of demarcation that defined “conservative” and “liberal.” The old definitions no longer work. Back before Trump, when those lines were more accepted, people felt more secure in their political stances and everybody knew where everything was, so to speak. But Trump blew through the GOP primaries in 2016 by brazeningly challenging and criticizing many of the accepted “conservative stances” within the GOP and then upset Hillary Clinton in the general election.
That forced people to evaluate what just happened. The old “political establishment” in DC (led by Democrats), as well as the legacy media, came to the conclusion that Trump’s rise was an “attack on democracy” and that he must have colluded with Russia to seize power. Why would they think that? Because they held to their assumptions that the old establishment was good and was working. They liked the way things were; they felt security in it. Simply put, the old political establishment didn’t want to even consider that maybe politicians in DC weren’t serving the interests of the American people anymore and that Americans had had enough and wanted to vote in a “giant middle finger” to that old establishment. Like it or not, that’s what happened. Like it or not, that is democracy.
The old establishment couldn’t handle it, though, and Trump was attacked by that old establishment from day one, from “Russia-gate,” to the impeachment over his Ukraine phone-call, to the impeachment after he had left office, to the numerous charges and court cases leveled against him as soon as he announced he was running again for 2024. Again, I’m not commenting on whether or not Trump and his policies are good or bad. I’m just describing what happened.
On the other side of the equation, to those who voted for him and now support him, they initially felt the old political establishment was out of touch and ineffective; but now, because of all those attacks on Trump, they feel the old political establishment isn’t just ineffective, but sinister and borderline tyrannical. I, for one, initially hated Trump and thought he was a joke. I accepted there was “some” corruption in our political system, but thought overall it was solid. Over the course of the past eight years, though, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is much more corruption in the old political establishment that I thought, and, in many ways, it has (to make a biblical allusion) has become very “beast-like” (Revelation 13). That doesn’t mean I blindly support Trump, but it does mean I think there are serious problems with the current government bureaucracy.
Back to Enns’ Comments About Partisanship
So, what does any of that have to do with Peter Enns take down of those MAGA pastors and his comments on how Christians should not be partisan, but anti-partisan? How they should be like the biblical prophets and (1) speak out against syncretism, and (2) speak up for justice for the poor and marginalized? Quite a lot, I think.
First, even though Enns was wrong in his definition of syncretism, he’s right that Christians should not elevate any politician or party to (for lack of a better term) “god-like status.” And this is where partisanship does come into play. When you are so blindly partisan that you refuse to acknowledge anything wrong or bad with your candidate or party and see everything as wrong and bad with the other candidate or party, then you are, in a sense, elevating your candidate or party to actual god-like status. You are, in a sense, guilty of syncretism.
But there’s an added wrinkle to all this when it comes to our current political climate in the United States: Trump has blown apart the old lines of demarcation that have traditionally defined both political parties. Like it or not, because of Trump, the GOP now holds to some positions that were standard Democrat stances in the past, and Democrats now have taken the opposing stance. Because of Trump, certain GOP politicians who were reviled by Democrats for being war-mongering criminals (Dick and Liz Cheney) are now embraced by Democrats and reviled by Republicans. A couple of years ago, Elon Musk was a liberal darling, saving the planet with is Tesla vehicles, but as soon as he supported Trump, well, he’s a Nazi! Let’s set Tesla vehicles on fire! …but now he’s in a social media spat with Trump over the “Big Beautiful Bill,” so we agree with him again (even though Musk’s opposition to the bill and the current Democrat opposition to the bill are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum).
Again, I’m not pro-or-anti-Trump here. I’m trying to point out that, as of now, the only clear political line of demarcation seems to be…Donald Trump. I’m not saying one is partisan if one simply supports Trump or doesn’t support Trump. What will make you partisan or not are the reasons you support or don’t support Trump and how you characterize those who don’t agree with you.
Now, in his two social media posts that I mentioned in my previous post, Enns echoes the same depiction of those who voted for Trump that I’ve seen from many ex-Evangelicals and progressives over the past few years. He does it in a less acidic, hostile way, but it’s still there. That depiction is basically this: Evangelicals who voted for Trump have “betrayed their faith,” are “worshipping Trump,” are “Christian nationalists,” and have sold their soul in order to grasp power to force Christianity onto America.
Although it is no doubt true that there are some Evangelicals who fit that description (among 77+ million voters for Trump (or any candidate), there are going to be nutjobs), I submit that that kind of blanket condemnation is actually one of the biggest signs of blind partisanship out there today. In fact, I’ve often found that people who make those kinds of accusations are often obsessed with gaining political party for themselves and their own side. Here’s why:
- The only people I ever hear talking about “Christian nationalism” are progressives and ex-Evangelicals. To claim that the entire MAGA movement is a sinister “Christian nationalist” movement is absurd, due to the objective fact that the majority of Trump voters are not even Evangelicals, let alone the kooky subset of “Christian nationalists” within Evangelicalism. Now, what ex-Evangelicals and progressives really are doing is labeling everyone who voted for Trump as being a “Christian nationalist,” a “fascist,” a “white supremacist,” etc. When you hear that many accusations and labels flying around, you’re dealing with people who are hyper-partisan.
- When I listen to Christians (be they Evangelical, Catholic, etc.), talk about why they support Trump, their reasons have to do with actual political issues like the national debt, illegal immigration, etc. And yes, they may say they have certain views because they reflect the values of their Christian faith, but that isn’t trying to “force Christianity” on America. That is called democracy within our Constitutional Republic, where people cast their votes for politicians and parties that they feel best reflects their own views and values.
Let’s use abortion as an example. I’ve heard ex-Evangelicals and progressives accuse any Christian (Evangelical or otherwise) of being a “Christian nationalist” because they want limits to abortion to some degree. These ex-Evangelicals and progressives claim that voting to limit abortion in any way is the equivalent of “forcing Christianity” on America…and separation of Church and State! It’s unconstitutional to force your Christian values onto the State! There are two glaring things wrong with that: (1) most obviously, being against abortion—even if your stance is rooted in your faith—is not forcing anyone to become a Christian; and (2) if a position is voted on and gains the support of a majority of the country, it’s not being done by force. The fact is everyone votes based on their values, and Christians have just as much as a right to do that as anyone else. You can disagree with their stances, but you shouldn’t accuse them trying to “create a theocracy” when they are just doing what voters should be doing. Maybe instead of hurling the “Christian nationalist” accusation around, people should make a coherent case for their own position—being abortion, the border, LGBTQ issues, whatever—and try to win people over with good arguments.
The fact is, the whole “Christian nationalist” hysteria is a canard, pure and simple, ginned up by those who, because of their own desire for naked, political power, want to whip people up into anti-Trump hysteria. When I grew up in Evangelicalism, there certainly was a hard “anti-Democrat” bias within Evangelicalism: anyone who voted Democrat or was “pro-choice” was a “baby-killer.” When you set up the political chessboard like that, it’s no wonder why Democrats were demonized. But the fact was that that kind of rhetoric to use in a blanket-like fashion was both dishonest and, yes, partisan. Because that is what blind partisanism does: it distorts, demonizes, oversimplifies, and whips people up into hysterics.
The same thing is happening today, only this time, it’s not being done using the old, traditional lines of demarcation between the parties; it’s being done solely on the person of Trump. Those who hate Trump are not just Democrats. Many ex-Evangelicals will tell you they grew up in conservative Evangelicalism, but when Trump got elected, they left Evangelicalism. Many will tell you they were life-long Republicans, but they see Trump as a “fascist” or “Nazi” who is a “threat to democracy.”
Whether one voted for Trump or not, those kinds of accusations are crazy and hysterical. The fact is, they are upset that Trump upended the old political establishment way of doing things, because there was a nice, sense of security in that old establishment. He wasn’t “nice” or “proper,” and if there is one thing that anyone who has grown up in American Evangelicalism knows too well, one of the characteristics of a “good Christian” is always being nice, polite, and proper. (It’s ironic that now they support politicians who regularly say, “Fuck Trump,” and talk about wanting to “kick Trump’s ass”). Trump upset many Evangelicals-now-turned-ex-Evangelicals because he offended their sense of politeness. Incidentally, I recently saw a picture someone posted of the past few presidents (Bush Sr., Bush Jr. Clinton, Obama, Carter) at some event smiling and talking together—the caption basically said how this person missed the good old days when there was civility.
I understand that—I wish we could be more civil as well. But what I think many people have failed to understand is that any human government, no matter how good it may be, will, given enough time, be prone to bloated bureaucracy and deep corruption, because every government, if left unchecked, can easily evolve into a bureaucratic beast. And I personally have come to the conclusion that neither the president nor Congress actually runs the government anymore. I think the bureaucracy has become so convoluted and bloated and corrupt that it actually controls the politicians within in. That is why it is, in my opinion, “beast-like.”
And that, I submit, lies at the heart of the current form of partisanship in the United States today. It’s not really “conservative vs. liberal,” or “GOP vs. Democrat” anymore—the fact that many of Trump’s supporters were life-long Democrats and liberals blows those old lines of demarcation out of the water. The current line of demarcation has to do with how one views the old political establishment of governance. I am convinced that when Democrats, progressives, and ex-Evangelicals say that Trump is a “threat to democracy,” they really are saying he’s a threat to “the way things used to be.” They’re right, he is a threat to the old political establishment. But he was voted in—twice. So, he’s not a threat to democracy. He’s what American democracy wants right now. And I submit that he didn’t win because the majority of America wants to have a Christian theocracy (seriously, step back and realize how insane that sounds). The majority of America is not happy with the way that “old political establishment” has handled a number of issues, and they voted for the guy who shared their concerns.
If you ignore that (regardless with whether or not you agree with Trump on specific issues), if you instead insist to keep parroting the same blanket-accusations and labels of “fascist,” “Nazi,” “Christian nationalist,” if your knee-jerk reaction to anything this current administration does is to take the polar opposite stance (no matter how absurd), if you scour the internet for memes that reinforce your bias that Trump, the GOP, and/or Evangelicals must just salivate over the idea of crushing the poor and marginalized, let me kindly suggest that you might, in fact, be blindly partisan—and that your partisanship isn’t really rooted in support for one party or candidate, but rather in a bloated government bureaucracy that is crushing the country in $37 trillion in debt…but you’re okay with that because you like politicians who say the right things and make you feel snuggly and secure.
Three Examples
At risk of going on too long, let me throw out three examples. After reading this post, some might accuse me of being a “Trump supporter” or being “MAGA.” I don’t see myself that way. I agree with a number of his policies, I want him to succeed because it’s my country we’re talking about, but I don’t agree with everything he’s done. I just don’t think he’s a super-villain. In any case, I want to briefly touch upon three examples where we see partisanship going on:
First, concerning the “Big Beautiful Bill.” I’ve seen people post memes that express outrage that Trump’s “BBB” is going to hurt the poor and need because it’s going to cut billions of dollars to things like Social Security and Medicare. First, when you look at the bill, nothing is really being cut. What is happening is that the bill is increasing spending at a lower rate than it was increased in the past: slowing the rate of growth is not “cutting.” Second, whenever one party accuses the other party of voting against a bill that would help the poor or voting for a bill that would hurt the poor, you need to realize that what that almost always means is this: a GOP senator voted against a Democrat bill but voted for the GOP bill. Both bills had the same provisions for the poor, but they differed in the kinds of “pork and goodies” each party put in the bill to satisfy their own partisan interests. If both parties would just stop attaching their own “partisan pork projects” to legitimate bills that have stuff they agree on, we would all be better off. Related to this…
Second, concerning the Musk-Trump Feud. Musk is against the “BBB” because he feels it actually increases spending instead of cutting government spending. He is right on that. Therefore, his reason for opposing the bill is polar opposite to why Democrats are against it. In any case, on one hand, I agree with Musk. I think the government is so bloated and wasteful that it could really cut $2 trillion in spending and it wouldn’t hurt voters at all. I mean, geesh, when George W. Bush left office in 2008, the federal debt was $10 trillion—and that alarmed me. Now it is $37 trillion—does anyone in their right mind think that is responsible spending? Still, I understand the logic of Trump concerning the BBB as well. Given the fact that politicians in Congress are too spineless to really cut anything, the thinking is that if we slow the rate of growth/spending, and if all the renegotiated trade deals end up bringing trillions of dollars of revenue into the country, that will end up overtaking the spending and then, slowly that will work toward reducing the debt—and that is something I think is really important. We’ll see if it works. But the fact is, Trump is doing what he campaigned on. I say let him try to do it and let’s see if it’s successful. If it does, it’s great for the country; if it doesn’t it will be just business as usual, and Trump will end up being no different than anyone else when it comes to the national debt. (That, I submit, is a non-partisan stance on the issue!).
Third, concerning Nazi Salutes. Back in January, Musk thanked voters who got Trump elected and made a gesture that Democrats and the media screamed was a flagrant Nazi salute. At the time, anyone who said it wasn’t was attacked and accused of being either a Nazi sympathizer or just stupid and deceived. Well, just this past week, Cory Booker made the exact same gesture to a crowd after a speech. Not surprisingly, no “Nazi salute” accusations were made by the Democrats or the media. Why? Because the claim that that gesture was an actual Nazi salute was ridiculous to begin with. Neither Musk nor Booker were swearing allegiance to the Fuhrer. It was a ridiculous and inflammatory accusation, and both the Democrats and the media knew it. And sadly (because some people have been whipped up into partisan hysteria), many people bought into the partisan nonsense.
Well, that’s it for this long post. It’s a bit rambling, and I’m not sure I even like it, but it is what it is. I was thinking about touching on some specific current issues that have sparked a lot of partisan outrage but thought better of it. As it stands, I hope there are a least a few things here worth considering.
