These are questions that occurred to me as I looked through the articles analyzing what just happened in South Carolina.
Exit polls conducted for the Associated Press and television networks show it was Trump's surprisingly strong performance among self-described evangelical conservatives in South Carolina that helped him notch another double-digit victory and sweep all 50 delegates. It was a grave blow to Ted Cruz, who invested heavily in his pursuit of religious conservatives here only to finish a narrow third behind Marco Rubio.That's from one of the 22 NYT articles that used the term "evangelical" in the last 4 days. I observe that voters only "self-described" as "evangelical" because it was one of the options framed by the pollsters.
Maureen Dowd has the word in her column ("Escape From Bushworld"):
Despite all the talk about civility, the Bushes threw out the red meat whenever they had to, from Lee Atwater and Willie Horton in ’88 to W.’s supporters whispering in 2000 that John McCain came home from Hanoi with snakes in his head, to the W. 2004 campaign strategy of encouraging gay marriage ballot initiatives to rile up the evangelicals, to Jeb spending a fortune on ads this winter eviscerating the character of the man he deemed the disloyal protégé, Marco Rubio.That's one hell of a sentence. I'd like to diagram it, but I'll just run it through a readability calculator. It's at the 13th grade level. Anyway, "evangelicals" seems to mean: those backward people who are susceptible to manipulation by cynical, devious politicos.
Here's a piece — "Poll Watch: Donald Trump’s Curiously Strong Support Among Evangelicals" — by a polisci prof named David R. Jones.
[Trump] has made perhaps the least effort of any Republican candidate to showcase his religiosity. And when he has done so, it has not always gone smoothly, saying, for example, that he did not believe he needed to seek forgiveness from God. Mr. Trump also performs the worst of all remaining candidates among voters who say it is most important to have a candidate who shares their values.... [But] only 4 in 10 evangelicals in South Carolina said that the most important quality to them was having a candidate who shares their values....Jones cautions against "stereotyping evangelical voters as a homogeneous bloc that prioritizes religious belief and religious observance above all other concerns," but he doesn't question the term itself. It seems to refer to something real: It's just hard to know what these real people will do, and you can't just snap up their votes by "showcasing religiosity."
But how real is it, if there's no bloc? What are we talking about... and who are we?
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
"Evangelical" is elitist code for "hillbilly."
What are we talking about... and who are we?
We are an Army of Davids against an Establishment Goliath.
Has something changed?
Evangelicals are desperate after being betrayed for 30 years by the GOPe.
Like a lot of other Americans, they have had it with politics as usual and the "Ruling Class."
If you haven't, read Codevilla's essay.
It will help you understand what is happening.
It's had to believe, but it's as if people who are deeply religious might have free will or something.
Expectations are meaningless in this time of weirdness.
What if evangelicals honor those that speak only truth? Consider how many prophets were stoned. PC largely comes from those who don’t want to face truth. Someone should go back and investigate every pTb statement’s premise, dig deeper than deep and see if he is John the Baptist, or better? Do they bow as he passes? Perhaps they think he and they are touched be the “Spirit.” Wouldn’t surprise me. No wonder he’s mocked. Every country has its history of these persons. Mine does as well. Amazing the respect for meditation and related ceremony.
My memory, is that the instant CW following the 2004 election was that evangelicals pushed Bush over the finish line.
The immediate reaction was Diane Sawyer asking if religious voters should be allowed to vote en masse. This was followed by an overcompensation after the consultants advised everyone what to do where for the next six or so, officials like Nancy Pelosi went out of their way to act extra-religious.
It's a word that Titus uses to express his bigotry, of course.
The reverse of social signalling.
"What if evangelicals honor those that speak only truth?" Ah yes, another good reason to vote for Trump.
The main libel implicit in the imprecise use of the term by the media and others is that the churchgoing majority in S.C. do not think for themselves, or are trapped in some deep ignorance that can't be overcome. In fact they are like everyone else, in that they have a set of beliefs that influence their thinking. Influence, not determine. It's a heck of a lot easier to predict what a Massachusetts or Madison liberal thinks on an issue than a South Carolina evangelical.
You never knew who they were Maureen. Then again the list of things you don't know is endless, starting with these myths:
from Lee Atwater and Willie Horton in ’88 to W.’s supporters whispering in 2000 that John McCain came home from Hanoi with snakes in his head, to the W.
Al Gore brought up Willie Horton, and the only contemporaneous claims to the SC push polling were from a University Professor and left wing activist who "specializes" in unscrupulous political tactics.
"Consider how many prophets were stoned." I didn't know they had time for that.
When media uses the term, it means nothing more than, "Christians who don't seem to be of the respectable nominal kind."
You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side
You may be workin’ in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair
You may be somebody’s mistress, may be somebody’s heir
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Just saying.
I am Laslo.
You mean people who don't know a thing about what they're writing about STILL don't know much about it?
Shocking.
It'd be like me trying to explain the logic of Third Wave Feminism without using the term "illogical".
Evangelicals are "those people."
Or in leftist speak: they are the people we are trying to "other."
Trump is still how America dies.
It's the only voting bloc the GOP is assigned as a special interest. I think it means white people who aren't liberal and are anti-abortion.
We all have to be in blocs these days, right? Women, Latino, Black, GLBT for the Dems. Evangelical for the GOP.
There's almost no room for just plain old people who vote with their own minds.
"Christians who don't seem to be of the respectable nominal kind."
Among a lot of mainstream Christian denominations it means those other denominations whose membership is actually growing.
I'm a Lutheran and some of the older Lutherans at the church I belong to refer to the younger people who attend and go to the contemporary service we offer as "evangelicals."
It is not a complement.
NPR did a story on this yesterday
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/21/467582494/the-true-number-of-evangelical-voters-depends-on-who-you-ask
Trump is the None of the Above! candidate, and may well run off with a substantial portion of the hitherto dependable Democrat electorate too.
In politics, "evangelical" always has an unspoken "white" in front of it. Non-white evangelicals do not fit the narrative.
Evangelicals are your non liturgical church guys who preach the Gospel and stress member should stop sinning. They tend to want to raise the members guilt levels and then end with an invitation to accept Christ and be born again, and again, and again. Interestingly, they stress the separation of Church and State, but will still vote to outlaw community SIN like a drinking, gambling, and romancing someone you are not married to.
The Sacrament Sales force are the Catholics and the half Catholic Episcopalians. They really don't need preaching or being born again since they are born into the Church that provides it all in the Sacraments. This is traditional world Christianity. Politically they do whatever the Clerical hierarchy wants them to do, or they stay silent.
Trump is a Calvinist Scots Presbyterian with a German persona. They are Pauline Christians and live by faith alone in God's predestined providence for their lives. If God chose to save them by faith, who are they to question Him. This releases a Protestant Work ethic that cannot be stopped and never surrenders.
Then there are the Pentecostals who rely on the Holy Spirit's gifts and do quite well when they get an education and can no longer be tricked, but very few ever do. John Ashcroft is one example. Interestingly, this is the fastest growing Christian group in Africa, South America, Central America and China.
The Cruz cult's appeal is a Domnionists rule by God's Church over the government. It mixes John Bircher paranoia and Conservative Purity Tests with a catholic Hierarchy governance. Ergo: It is un-American as it gets. Trump can beat that simply by pointing out the Lies at its core.
You know who's really confusing? The Satanists.
"the Satanic values don’t fall in line with what Donald Trump promotes"
Did ye make some unholy bond with that goat?
Now that the MSM has accepted the fact the Donnie isn't going away, they will begin their opposition research in earnest. The recently discovered Howard Stern interview is case in point. His personal Vietnam quote should go over well with vets and evangelicals.
The Dallas FBC Pastor, Robert Jeffers appearing to support Trump is a real shocker to me. He puts the E in Evangelical.
I've taken it to mean, generally, as usually theologically and socially conservative, including nondenominational. If it's used in a disparaging manner, it's by those not strong in their own faith. If it's heard disparagingly, I would generally assume the same. If you're strong in your own faith, it shouldn't matter.
"Trump is still how America dies."
No. Open borders and demographic replacement is how America dies-is dying. Wake up you fool!
"Trump is still how America dies."
No, I think you are a little late.
It's was pretty much over before Trump came along.
Obama may have wrecked his party by losing the Congress and most of the state legislatures, but he certainly has moved it to the hard community-organizing left. Sanders has little appreciation that he is an artifact of free-market capitalism, which alone has created enough bounty for such a demagogue to call for massive redistribution—in a way impossible for socialists any longer in exhausted Cuba, Greece, Venezuela, or any other command-economy paradise. Where does Sanders think his statism has worked—China, North Korea, Bolivia, Cuba, or the ossified European Union?
Bill Clinton on the stump has reminded us that there need not be any dignity to the post-presidency He offers a blueprint to becoming fabulously wealthy by monetizing a mere eight years in office with lifetime quid pro quos and Putin-like leverage. He has managed to make the sanctimonious scold Jimmy Carter seem reverential in comparison. The mystery of Hillary Clinton is not that she should be indicted on charges that are routinely filed against lesser miscreant bureaucrats, but that her entire corrupt career has always somehow been exempt, from cattle speculation to withholding subpoenaed evidence.
Mrs. Clinton is now like a tottering third-world caudillo—she can’t really continue on in politics and she can’t quit trying if she wants to stay out of jail.
Now, that is what America dying looks like.
"Now that the MSM has accepted the fact the Donnie isn't going away, they will begin their opposition research in earnest."
Stuck on stupid...
Evangelicals are white protestants who don't just believe in God on Sundays, but seven days a week, every week. Or as syndey said, "hillbillies".
Evangilcalism in the media is interchangeable with fundamentalism, by which they mean anti-intellectual, anti-science opposition to leftward progress.
"We" are the 13th graders. The "Evangelicals"? That's not who "we" are.
"Evangelical" used to be a term used by some protestant Christians to differentiate themselves from others who were not so evangelical. Evangelists actually went out to recruit people to Christianity.
It used to mean what it says. Now it means, as many above have cited, what people pointing and sneering at them want it to mean.
Historically, Evangelicalism started as a movement that pushed against the anti-intellectualism of the Fundamentalism movement in the late 1940s. Key leaders sought to bring intellectual engagement and cultural involvement back into conservative faith. As the basic steps of this new movement they started a new journal (now more of a magazine) called Christianity Today, a flagship seminary Fuller Theological Seminary, and had a popular boost through the participation of Billy Graham.
Fuller has a great page on its approach that gives insight into Evangelical belief. Fuller is criticized from the right and from the left, still very much expressing the center of Evangelical approaches. Those who are much more conservative are more in line with traditional Fundamentalism (the movement not the moniker) and those more liberal are in line with contemporary Progressive theology, with Fuller having a number of students who represent the whole spectrum including these two groups.
Basically Evangelicals affirm the importance of:
1. The authority and sufficiency of Scripture
2. The uniqueness of Christ
3. The importance of the cross of Christ for salvation
4. The necessity of personal appropriation of faith
5. The urgency of mission and evangelism
Evangelicals have tended to be conservative in their politics, though generally focused on social issues, with other issues not so neatly developed. It's also the case that there's significant differences among Evangelicals on a number of non-core issues, as it's more of a movement describing religious values than a social indicator. There's not necessarily a shared history, so how these values are expressed tend to be culture driven and reactionary.
Which is to say, Evangelicals will tend to vote as a bloc within different contexts. Don't underestimate Trump's seduction of Jerry Falwell Jr. as a major boost to his credentials.
Trump, again, isn't Pauline, he's more like this guy, who also sparked a major movement that drew people in. Coming myself from a strong Scots-Irish background (McBride on my mom's side), I don't recognize Trump as anything like the people I come from. He's a huckster, but hucksters have an appeal to those who feel unprioritized.
Evangelicalism is, really, still caught in the transition away from Christendom, so many like the idea of a charismatic leader to give them voice. Because popular Evangelicalism tends to be shallow in theology, the reactionary element tends to dominate without consistent connection to other values.
I'm a Lutheran and some of the older Lutherans at the church I belong to refer to the younger people who attend and go to the contemporary service we offer as "evangelicals."
Ironic, if it is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. I could understand Missouri or Wisconsin Synod objections, but I can't imagine either of them having a 'contemporary' service.
Who are "Evangelicals?" This is something our Government should decide. It should be noted on identification cards along with age, sex, race, hair and eye color. There should be quotas established and special laws passed to ensure non-discrimination.
"Evangelical" has a technical definition, but it has become codespeak for "very religious people who vote accordingly". I wouldn't be surprised if it was used to refer to some Catholics. Once they start referring to some Jews as evangelicals, then the term has jumped the shark.
Watch out, elites, Evangelicals and Catholics are uniting!
I could understand Missouri or Wisconsin Synod objections, but I can't imagine either of them having a 'contemporary' service.
Contemporary in our context means a praise band and current Christian music and the liturgy isn't done away with all together, but some elements (scripture readings) are retained while others are not.
I always laugh at liberals talking about the dangers of dominionism.
Christian churches in the US have knock down drag out fights over changing the time the service starts by 30 minutes (with people nursing grudges for years and waiting for a chance for pay back) yet we are all going to band together and impose a theology.
If you take Paddy's narrow definition of Evangelical as a small trend in theology after WWII, God help you. But Paddy then broadly brands Trump an occultist pretend Christian social climber who easily seduced a leader like Falwell at Liberty.
Theus Logos must be really hard.
In this context, it probably means nothing.
I think in the pages of the NYT and WaPo it means "Those people we don't like".
I think the dividing line for the purposes of this election is between individuals who make their living off Main Street and those who don't - loosely associated networks of political clients (foundations, lobbyists, academics, Wall Street, large corporation executives).
Cruz is quite simply too conservative and radical for these people. No one's voting for Trump because of his virtues. But very few Main-Streeters really consider politics as religion.
It should not surprise anyone that a trucker, a plumber, an electrician, a mechanic, a small business owner, a farmer, a teacher in a non-urban environment, a nurse, a person who works in a shop, or a police officer would vote for a person who is espousing a platform of not prioritizing immigration over the interests of those already resident here, redressing the balance of trade, conserving the basic social network (protecting SS), protecting the country against terrorists, and dealing fairly with people under the law.
It should not surprise anyone that a trucker, a plumber, an electrician, a mechanic, a small business owner, a farmer, a teacher in a non-urban environment, a nurse, a person who works in a shop, or a police officer would vote for a person who is espousing a platform of not prioritizing immigration over the interests of those already resident here, redressing the balance of trade, conserving the basic social network (protecting SS), protecting the country against terrorists, and dealing fairly with people under the law.
And yet, most of the oppositional argument against him, as framed by the entrenched interests, is that he is a bad person.
The question is not any longer whether Trump will win. The question now is whether we can Trust Trump.
Bring it on.
"Curiously strong," "surprisingly strong?" What the hell is that supposed to mean?
There are no doubt many "self-described evangelicals" who either don't take their faith seriously or who are just as easily duped as the heathens by the likes of Trump and Obama. Our news media, which readily concedes the "Christianity" of the likes of Obama and Trump by "self-description," apparently cannot comprehend the worldview, let alone the underlying theology, that defines Christianity.
By Christian standards, Trump is obviously an immoral man, but what actually matters is that he is an unrepentant man.
That he has any support among committed Evangelicals is both curious and surprising.
"The question now is whether we can Trust Trump." Funny!
But I do trust him on his amnesty proposal: I am sure he will try and push all illegals out and let them all back in.
That he has any support among committed Evangelicals is both curious and surprising.
A lot of evangelicals deeply love the USA and want to support a guy who seems to love the country as much as they do. Trump has always been the most extravagantly pro-USA guy out there.
Tradguy (9:40): "Evangelicals are your non liturgical church guys who preach the Gospel and stress member should stop sinning...."
Here's Tradguy speaking ignorantly from what sounds like the pulpit of the arrogant, nearly secular, Presbyterian Church that is bleeding parishioners.
Calvinist Presbyterians may not be troubled by Trump's avowed lack of any need to ask God's forgiveness for anything - because "predestination." "Forgive us our debts" has to do with past due loans. Right, Tradguy?
And the "Cruz cult is dominionist...." Seriously? What time did you hit the booze this morning?
damikesc (1:15): "Trump has always been ...."
Trump has always been:
Pro-choice, til now.
In favor of single payer health care, til now.
A financial supporter of high profile liberal Democrats, til now.
A personal friend and admirer of the Clinton's, til now.
A crony capitalist, til now.
An employer of illegal immigrants, till now (if he has stopped).
Etc.
Etc.
"By MY Christian standards, Trump is obviously an immoral man, but what actually matters is that he is an unrepentant man. "
FIFY
Amusing all these Trump psychiatrists.
Trump has always been:
Pro-choice, til now.
In favor of single payer health care, til now.
A financial supporter of high profile liberal Democrats, til now.
A personal friend and admirer of the Clinton's, til now.
A crony capitalist, til now.
An employer of illegal immigrants, till now (if he has stopped).
Etc.
Etc.
I suppose if I argued he was always ANY of those, you'd have a point.
But I didn't.
So you don't. Try and do better. You're not talking to a Trump zombie here.
Michael K: "By my Christian standards..." I see Michael. There are no Christian standards, just individual standards? Just like there is no truth, just your truth and my truth. There is no logic, just your logic and my logic.
Sorry, that just doesn't work for bible believing Christians, but you are welcome to your moral relativism.
@damikesc: I don't need to do better.
You spoke in absolute terms about Trump's "extravagant pro-USA" stance. It is relevant to point out that Trump changes positions like others change socks. There is no always with him in the political arena except perhaps always arrogant.
I'm also not sure his financial support for Reid and Pelosi, et al, would generally be considered "extravagantly pro-USA.
I didn't say you were a Trump zombie.
"If you take Paddy's narrow definition of Evangelical as a small trend in theology after WWII, God help you"
Well, he does. And it's all that book learning I've done got that leads me to use the official definition of Evangelicalism as a movement. If'n yer interested, I'd suggest the works of George Marsden on this topic. If'n you just want to use words however you want to use them and place yourself as the official authority over topics even when you're wrong then have at it.
Bebbington's definition, of course, goes earlier and beyond the American Evangelical movement, but it shows a consistency of themes. As an actual named movement, there's real history and backgrounds. But, knowing stuff just gets in the way of asserting stuff, and that's a problem for Trump supporters, I guess.
What did I get wrong Hombre describing good Christians? Calvinist Presbyterians are satisfied that they are saved by faith and when they sin it is correctable as any forgiven debt paid in full on Calvary. If that makes you angry, then maybe have a legalism problem and want everybody else to self condemn themselves so you will feel better that you have to do it. That is silly.
And I understand Evangelicals really well, having attended the same church sitting in the pew next to as the Truett Cathy and family every Sunday for 15 vears.
Why don't you join the fast called by Glen Beck until Cruz wins a primary.
You spoke in absolute terms about Trump's "extravagant pro-USA" stance. It is relevant to point out that Trump changes positions like others change socks. There is no always with him in the political arena except perhaps always arrogant.
Go back and look at his stuff from the 80's. Exact same hyper pro-USA stuff. This isn't some new schtick. He's been consistent on it for decades now.
I'm also not sure his financial support for Reid and Pelosi, et al, would generally be considered "extravagantly pro-USA.
You have to play the game by the rules in place. And if giving them some money gets a massive return, you'd be foolish to not do it.
Trump's business employed tons of people (I worked at the Borgata and dealt with Taj Mahal, Marina, and Plaza employees a lot).
His alternative is Hillary, who is even more brazenly on the take and has benefitted markedly fewer people.
@tradguy (3:43): Your claim about salvation for Calvinist Presbyterians is the same as that for every Evangelical church I have attended.
As for sitting next to the Truett Cathy family for fifteen years, it obviously didn't make you an expert on Evangelicalism as evidenced by your shallow comment about Paddy's perfectly accurate description thereof.
Perhaps you learned how to cook chicken, if nothing else.
As an evangelical myself, given the chance, I will not vote for Trump in the primary. Probably won't matter as I live in Pa. Different story in the general election, I would vote for him against either the Bern or the pathological Liar. I was quite stunned that Trump received the high % of the evangelical vote that he did in SC.
My spouse, a strong evangelical, thinks Trump is as phony as an three dollar bill. She will sit this one out if Trump is the guy.
BTW It appears Trump has never asked for forgiveness of his sins. Some might call that unrepentant. I would.
"Moderator Frank Luntz asked Trump whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions.
"I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so," he said. "I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/
As for your in depth Theology School Professors that is a career in itself as Paddy has discovered the hard way. The great Theologians wrestle with hundreds of nuanced big words trying to settle great theological issues such as of paedobaptism . (sprinkling v. immersion ) But the issue is not how narrow a category the evangelical brand can be reduced to by Great Theology Professors living in a publish or perish world, but it is about the practices by authentic Christians in the local churches. The Southern Baptists Evangelical to the core DO NOT have a general confession of sin in their services. You did read that too, I hope.
It's those terrible liberal PCUSA guys that DO recite a General Confession of Sin
in every service right before the minister pronounces that all of the sins of all of the members who confessed are FORGIVEN in Jesus name. That is a high light of the service.
Then we add a recital of the Nicean Creed, that is Christianity proclaimed in 8 sentences, not 10,000 treatises.Then we all recite the Lord's Prayer in which we that ask our Father for His forgiveness of our Debts as we forgive others their Debts.
And as for Truett Cathy, that humble man has given away hundreds of millions of dollars to orphans in Foster families from mere stupid chicken cooking.
Laslo loves Dylan! Omg omg omg...
Pew's description (and more).
Pretty accurate from my experience as an ex-Catholic, Evangelical for the past 35 years.
I'm my small circle of Evangelicals I've yet to find one who supports Trump. YMMV
PS Re: stereotypes of Evangelicals. I'm originally from New York, two advanced degrees, don't like NASCAR. But really enjoy Chick Fil A.
Trump is a Calvinist Presbyterian like Silvio Berlusconi is a Roman Catholic--They were both baptised in their respective churches.
Yes, Ken. brother Donald and brother Silvio are Christians in good standing . But there is a rumor around that these brothers were paedobaptized. Please don't tell the Evangelicals. It would only trouble them unnecessarily and we need them to give money to send out missionaries to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the nations..quickly.
"Please don't tell the Evangelicals. It would only trouble them unnecessarily and we need them to give money to send out missionaries to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to all the nation's .. quickly."
Yes, tradguy, it's called "The Great Commission." It's a directive from Jesus and it's, you know, biblical, which is why as a Presbyterian you may think it unimportant.
Hope this helps:
Matthew 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations ....
Matthew 28:19
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा