Take a photo of a barcode or cover
30 reviews for:
The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power Over Christian Values
Ben Howe
3.6 AVERAGE
30 reviews for:
The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power Over Christian Values
Ben Howe
3.6 AVERAGE
This book is written primarily to a Christian audience to encourage them to trust God rather than the promises of men. This book isn't about voting for any particular candidate or party, but asks the question -Will we compromise our Christian integrity in the voting booth?
Howe makes a case that when we place our hope in men, we lose our witness to the world and compromise our faith. He has quotes from liberal pundits defending Clinton re: his assault of Monica Lewinsky and contrasts them to conservatives' defense (including some pastors!) over Trump's radio interview where he boasts about the women he has assaulted. They were almost identical in their excuses, and those excuses were for all the world to see.
He also works through ethical issues such as voting for the lesser of two evils. But is that even consistent with the scriptures? There are no easy answers, and the author doesn't give an easy out but encourages the reader to wrestle through them on his own before God and conscience.
This is a timely book with November coming up. Howe makes it clear that Christ reigns and God's plans are never thwarted. For those who profess to follow him, do we believe it?
Howe makes a case that when we place our hope in men, we lose our witness to the world and compromise our faith. He has quotes from liberal pundits defending Clinton re: his assault of Monica Lewinsky and contrasts them to conservatives' defense (including some pastors!) over Trump's radio interview where he boasts about the women he has assaulted. They were almost identical in their excuses, and those excuses were for all the world to see.
He also works through ethical issues such as voting for the lesser of two evils. But is that even consistent with the scriptures? There are no easy answers, and the author doesn't give an easy out but encourages the reader to wrestle through them on his own before God and conscience.
This is a timely book with November coming up. Howe makes it clear that Christ reigns and God's plans are never thwarted. For those who profess to follow him, do we believe it?
This book was difficult to read because I could relate to so much of it, and reading it stressed me out. I had to put the book down for a minute when school started, and I just didn't have the energy or motivation to finish it. I (barely) skimmed through the sermon-like final chapter. Perhaps I shouldn't even count this as one for my reading challenge, but I'm going to anyway.
Howe manages to convey my thoughts on the debacle that was 2016 (and the mess that followed) almost exactly. As a conservative Christian, he offers an honest and unflinching critique of the state of the church and the evangelical movement. Those who are neither conservative nor religious probably won't enjoy this book as it's written from the perspective of both of those groups. I can't bring myself to give this over 3 stars, because I didn't enjoy reading it at all, and the subject matter is so headache-inducing.
Howe manages to convey my thoughts on the debacle that was 2016 (and the mess that followed) almost exactly. As a conservative Christian, he offers an honest and unflinching critique of the state of the church and the evangelical movement. Those who are neither conservative nor religious probably won't enjoy this book as it's written from the perspective of both of those groups. I can't bring myself to give this over 3 stars, because I didn't enjoy reading it at all, and the subject matter is so headache-inducing.
I saw Ben Howe discussing his book on Oprah’s Super Soul Sunday, and was interested in his talking points. It was refreshing to read a conservative point of view that was not filled with propaganda. I do not agree with some of his view points, but it helped me to make sense of some of the past few years’ unorganized organized chaos.
Scripture is written within Howe’s book, but, in my opinion, it’s to help explain thought processes (his, and the evangelicals of whom he discusses).
Scripture is written within Howe’s book, but, in my opinion, it’s to help explain thought processes (his, and the evangelicals of whom he discusses).
medium-paced
This is a hard one for me to rate. I read a fair bit of political and faith based books and this was an interesting mix. The writer is a very conservative writer who found himself at odds with his party when many Evangelicals supported Trump. This basically is his deep dive on why that happened when it seemed to contrary to Christian teachings. Personally, I found this shift puzzling, so it was eye opening to read his take on how/why it came about. I didn't quite follow all of his arguments, but, all in all, it was informative. Nice to read something from a different POV than some of the other books I have read on the subject.
I don’t know that I completely buy Howe’s premise or stance on what Evangelicals seek in a candidate. For many of them, I believe they are being sincere when they claim they chose the lesser of two evils. If someone believes, for example, that abortion is killing human beings that deserve as much value and protection as any person already born, they might very well argue that overlooking character flaws is a minor thing compared to fighting to save lives.
I’m not sure I agree with his assertion that people of faith can’t justify voting for a candidate for reasons that support the causes most important to them. We all often settle for compromise as part of life in order to get something close to what we want.
I do know that I completely related to Howe’s experience of watching the Right seem to shift from what he recognized and could identify with into something much more driven by political points, “liberal tears,” and election outcomes. I watched with dumbfounded amazement as once-loved figures became hated traitors because they didn’t blindly follow the narrative of candidate, then President, Trump.
Lots of eye-opening moments where I consider the movement I once identified with and wonder “How did we get to this place?”
I’m not sure I agree with his assertion that people of faith can’t justify voting for a candidate for reasons that support the causes most important to them. We all often settle for compromise as part of life in order to get something close to what we want.
I do know that I completely related to Howe’s experience of watching the Right seem to shift from what he recognized and could identify with into something much more driven by political points, “liberal tears,” and election outcomes. I watched with dumbfounded amazement as once-loved figures became hated traitors because they didn’t blindly follow the narrative of candidate, then President, Trump.
Lots of eye-opening moments where I consider the movement I once identified with and wonder “How did we get to this place?”
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
fast-paced
informative
medium-paced
*****SPOILER alert *****
FYI, some of what I say is to the evangelicals of this book. I think it’s safe to say that I see the author’s point of view and largely agree with what he’s presented. Also, I am so repulsed by 45 that I refuse to acknowledge him by name.
“Because he’s God’s vessel. And, as was said, you don’t question the vessel. In 2015,....Trump supporter Vicki Sciolaro outlined it on CNN, saying, “God can use anybody. He used the harlots. It’s all about what God can do. God can do this. God can use this man.”At the time, it was a somewhat common evangelical take on trusting Trump.” If we follow the logic that God was using 45 to do God’s work, the same could’ve been said about Clinton had she been elected. Had she been elected, this line of thought would’ve been rejected by the very same people. I’m not saying Clinton would’ve been a better choice, but I am saying that’s fallacious thinking on their part and nothing more than justifying their dissonance. They’re oblivious to the fact that any argument they made for 45 could’ve been said the same way about Clinton, but to them , it only applied to 45. That’s flawed logic, and it extends to the rest of their ideologies: seeming to think religious liberty should apply only to Christians, that the sanctity of marriage only counts if it’s a heterosexual one, and that the sanctity of life is limited to unborn babies, never mind the women carrying these babies.
Next, I’m so disappointed by Franklin Graham. Would like to say his papa is too, but I’m so disillusioned by public Christian celebrities these days, cuz that’s what they are, that I’m not sure I can say that. I can say that realizing Franklin Graham LOVED 45 was one of the many reasons I left God and church behind - him and all the other hypocrites that make up the extreme right Republican Party, which seems to be littered with these “evangelicals,” which I put in parentheses because they do mot actually embody evangelicalism in is truest sense. (Evangelicalism is not about controlling people’s choices - e.g., whether women are permitted to have reproductive agency, who is allowed to marry, who can be educated about what, who should be allowed to vote, etc., as it seems to be today, but about offering people the choice of believing in Christ.) Over time, I realized I was only practicing the disciplines of Christianity without actually believed any of it for the sake of my parents. So I read this book as someone who rejects Christianity after decades of trying to accept it.
The evangelicals claim 45 was the chosen vessel to do God’s work. God is supposed to be omnipotent. By that very definition, God does not anyone, including evangelicals and definitely including 45, to do anything on God’s behalf. Nor are any of them needed to complete God’s goals - God can do that all alone. God can even do it through Clinton (gasp!). 45 was neither elected by God nor the people. It was the evangelical electorate that voted him in. The rallying by evangelicals around 45 as inerrant, to use the author’s word, and that he essentially knows better than Jesus is troubling. If they were truly objective to their own selves, they’d realize this is dangerously close to The Tower of Babel.
The bottom line is that the Bible can be used to justify any behavior, any choice, and human desire without consequences. And that’s what the evangelicals did. Because 45 was deplorable, and they all knew it, they quote Bible stories and passages ad nauseum to argue why they were right. What they failed to grasp is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that package A (45) will give you all the success you want for life and package B (Clinton) will result in your eternal damnation, which is how they seemed to view the 2016 election and then did every somersault they could to justify this perspective.
Ann Coulter is quoted as saying: “It’s not that we hate the poor; it’s that every time the government tries to help the poor it ends up removing the marvelous incentives life provides to do things like buy an alarm clock, get a job, keep your knees together before marriage, and generally become a productive, happy member of society.” This disgusts me because it’s to imply that all people who aren’t poor buy alarm clocks, get jobs, keep their knees together before marriage, and are generally productive and happy members of society. That’s completely unconsidered. These are not what define poor people and people who aren’t poor. And this is the problem here - this unsubstantiated, uncritical, and totally flawed righteousness. This righteousness is what has come to define political parties, and this is why our politics is an utter failure and moral abomination. This is why it’s important to separate church and state. And let’s remember, the founding fathers also believed in the separation of church and state, having fled Britain because a unified church and state conflicted them that much.
Edward Crane is quoted with: “After decades in the wilderness, the GOP regained control of Congress in 1994 with a platform that called for abolishing the Department of Education. And why not? There is not a word devoted to education in the Constitution, which means that under the Enumerated Powers Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment (for those too dense to understand the former) education is a responsibility of state and local government or, preferably, of no government at all.” If this is so, then why do Republicans care about what and how we teach in schools today? In Texas, teachers are required to educate students on the other side of things like the Holocaust and slavery. What other side???? I cannot fathom how Naziism and slavery can be positioned to children as anything other than morally repugnant, and yet, they are to learn that there is an alternative view. As much as I passionately care about teaching then critical thinking, and maybe I’m the one lacking here, but I also think it’s important to say the Holocaust and slavery were just plain wrong. Yet teachers are told that if they have a book on the Holocaust or slavery, they must also teach a book opposing them. This is what Republicans have done.
This book isn’t a demonization of Republicans, but it does unabashedly admit some of the problems with the party like the ones I’ve just cited here. Mostly, it’s a book that wonders how Republican Christians can possibly justify their support of 45. I often questioned this myself, and it was a big reason (not the only one though) as to why I excised the church from my life. People I love and who themselves love God in word and deed inexplicably voted for 45 on the basis that he was also Christian (including my dad). There is nothing about 45’s words or deeds that are Christian in any way. I was baffled and frustrated. It would’ve been more honest and palatable if they’d admitted they voted for 45 because he wasn’t Clinton.
It seems the author is equally confounded. He talks about how Congressman Mulvaney tried to explain that insulting people fails to garner votes for the party and used a couple of very good examples to make his point. As soon as he did, his very conservative evangelical audience checked out, and he lost them because he wasn’t spewing hateful rhetoric on immigrants. So, are we left to think that to be an acceptable Republican evangelical, you have to be a jerk? According to the author, it was more that they were angry and wanted their anger fueled. They were angry because they felt short shrifted politically for too long by the left liberals (people like me who want to include, including them, rather than exclude anyone at all) until 45 came along - their savior. Boohoo. He says conservatives were outraged at the injustice of political correctness. Well, my definition of outrage of injustice included things like mass incarceration of Blacks, police killings of unarmed young Black men, the nonchalant killing of trans people, especially trans women, and maternal mortality, including the criminalization of doctors who want to help mothers in danger of losing their own lives to save a baby that has less than a ten percent chance of survival. So yeah, anger at perceived censorship (perceived because their freedom of expression was actually still Constitutionally protected) was not a justifiable reason to vote for 45.
He accuses the left of failing to act in good faith over and over again during Obama, but he doesn’t give any concrete examples - just the complaint of himself being painted as a racist Nazi. So, it’s hard to analyze the basis for the anger. The only finger pointed is at political correctness, which, again, is irrational since speech is protected for everyone, including him and the others on the conservative right. How are they the victims??? Sorry, but trying to explain why conservatives picked 45 along this rationale fails the smell test. It just wasn’t a good enough reason. The left thinks we’re all evil, so let’s prove them right by electing an evil man? The left made them the monsters they embrace and embody? C’mon! Where is the personal accountability of being a grownup???? While I appreciate the author’s attempt to make an honest assessment of what happened and why, on this point, he failed. Hurt feelings just aren’t enough. We tell children that sticks and stones are the only things that hurt. Let’s take our own advice.
This brings us to the alt-right. I am one of the blessed people the author describes when referring to someone who’s never heard the term “cuck” or “cuckservative” until reading this book. I’m disgusted by the definition and more disturbed by the people who came up with it (they obviously had to watch enough porn to invent this portmanteau). There is no such thing as White genocide in this country, and Blacks are not inferior in any sense anywhere in the world (living in unwanted circumstances does not make a person inferior, and neither does the former subjugation of slavery!). And we (the left leaning) are not the enemy. So don’t pretend we are. And stop pretending to be the victims. First of all, being White means you automatically have the privilege of power. Secondly, none of us (I hope) are actually anti-White. Being pro-BIPoc does not make us anti-White by default. Being religiously open means being open to all religions and not being anti-Christian as the evangelicals seem to think, as they consistently align their values as protecting their religious freedoms (and only theirs ), as if it was ever on the line in the first place. What they are failing to understand is that we are not trying to exclude their White Christian selves. Rather, we are simply making space for the rest of humankind. There’s nothing wrong with being nice! And guess what? It’s really nice when everyone is nice together.
I thought this was cute: equating pro-gender confusion with liberals. Well, I can tell you that my queer friends are not confused by their gender. The people who are confused is everyone else, and just like we were taught in school and by parents, if you are confused, then ask questions. If anyone is confused, it’s the evangelicals. On the one hand, you’ve got Jeffress saying that 45 is perfect because he doesn’t care about the Sermon on the Mount and that the president’s job is to care about the nation selfishly rather than the world compassionately. On the other hand, evangelicals like him are saying a vote for 45 was a vote for Christ. Make up your minds folks!
By the way, evangelical friends, I invite you to rethink your position on abortion. It’s not a yes/no proposition. It’s not only about unborn babies. It’s a lot more complicated than that, and I’m willing to bet that under today’s legal definition of what constitutes an abortion, many of you have had one yourselves, even if you didn’t realize it. Also, why is it only Herschel Walker who should be excused for actually having paid for an abortion? If you want to ban it for all women, realize that includes your evangelical women and that they also get impregnated accidentally as teens or by rape or by incest. These things don’t only happen to left wing girls and women. Remember that the sun shines on the good and the bad, just as the rain falls on the wicked and the righteous (Matthew 5:45!).
I think I could be good friends with the author. I think he could use a friend, actually, because where he stands - a conservative Christian evangelical who deplores and is ashamed of and by 45 - sounds like a pretty lonely place to be. We don’t have to agree politically on anything to be friends, and chances are, we’re probably don’t. But I bet we could find common ground - like I bet we would agree that everyone deserves civil rights, irrespective of gender, race, or sexual orientation (pretty sure Jesus would say so too, considering he spent most of his time hanging out with the oppressed and fighting the moral majority of his days).
Also, I respect his self-examination and that of his Christian brethren. He might be one of the only public Christians I might actually respect. And I think he nailed it on the head when he said: “Brutality is the new outreach. Subjugation is the new persuasion. Pragmatism is the new morality. Winning is the new religion. But all of this failed to answer that final and important question. Why? Such a simple answer: selfishness.” When it comes right down to it, of all the issues that matters most, it came down to who will line my pockets most, either directly (the congregants) or indirectly (the pastors), according to the author.
The only point in the book I'd ask him to reconsider is his position on Kavanaugh. This seems to be a blind spot for him. It seems clear to me that he thought Clinton should've been removed from office for his egregious misuse of power and sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky. I totally agree with this and have since it first occurred. So I also question his support of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who is guilty of statutory rape. How is Kavanaugh fit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice by this same measure? (I also have always thought it a travesty that Clarence Thomas is also serving as a Supreme Court Justice given his sexual harassment of Anita Hill - none of these men should have ever been put in office!)
I recommend to the writer reading Mistakes were Made (but not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson as well as How Minds Change: the Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney. These books might also help him make sense of them years before, during, and after 45.
I have to wonder how people unfamiliar with Christianity, its doctrines, and its Bible have found this book. I’m familiar with the principles and the vocabulary (growing the kingdom, saving souls, salvation, witnessing, etc.) because of my upbringing, but it must sound really foreign to everyone else. So I wonder then, which was this book written for? Who is the intended audience? I think it must’ve been for other Christians. Chapter six (more the latter half) is particularly confusing and rife with some logical issues that only make sense if you are a Christian.
I voted for Johnson and was eviscerated by feminist friends for having essentially voted against her, but like the author, I voted my conscience (actually, I voted for the best vice-presidential candidate because I didn't like any of the presidential ones!). Upon reflecting on that election and my own struggles to pick the best candidate, I also wonder, if someone else had run for the Democrats in 2016, would this book even have been written? It’s my opinion it all started with the bitter and downright abhorrence of Clinton. So, if Bernie (or anyone even slightly more palatable than Clinton) had been the Democratic nominee, would 45 been able to ride the evangelical coattails to the Oval Office? Would the country have been so divided?
I end with this thought. My friend said something about how teams always pray for victory as evidence of God’s favor and a promise to glorify him. However, says my friend, God is neither for the winning team or the losing team; God is for all teams because God is for all people. I wholeheartedly agree, assuming there is a real God
FYI, some of what I say is to the evangelicals of this book. I think it’s safe to say that I see the author’s point of view and largely agree with what he’s presented. Also, I am so repulsed by 45 that I refuse to acknowledge him by name.
“Because he’s God’s vessel. And, as was said, you don’t question the vessel. In 2015,....Trump supporter Vicki Sciolaro outlined it on CNN, saying, “God can use anybody. He used the harlots. It’s all about what God can do. God can do this. God can use this man.”At the time, it was a somewhat common evangelical take on trusting Trump.” If we follow the logic that God was using 45 to do God’s work, the same could’ve been said about Clinton had she been elected. Had she been elected, this line of thought would’ve been rejected by the very same people. I’m not saying Clinton would’ve been a better choice, but I am saying that’s fallacious thinking on their part and nothing more than justifying their dissonance. They’re oblivious to the fact that any argument they made for 45 could’ve been said the same way about Clinton, but to them , it only applied to 45. That’s flawed logic, and it extends to the rest of their ideologies: seeming to think religious liberty should apply only to Christians, that the sanctity of marriage only counts if it’s a heterosexual one, and that the sanctity of life is limited to unborn babies, never mind the women carrying these babies.
Next, I’m so disappointed by Franklin Graham. Would like to say his papa is too, but I’m so disillusioned by public Christian celebrities these days, cuz that’s what they are, that I’m not sure I can say that. I can say that realizing Franklin Graham LOVED 45 was one of the many reasons I left God and church behind - him and all the other hypocrites that make up the extreme right Republican Party, which seems to be littered with these “evangelicals,” which I put in parentheses because they do mot actually embody evangelicalism in is truest sense. (Evangelicalism is not about controlling people’s choices - e.g., whether women are permitted to have reproductive agency, who is allowed to marry, who can be educated about what, who should be allowed to vote, etc., as it seems to be today, but about offering people the choice of believing in Christ.) Over time, I realized I was only practicing the disciplines of Christianity without actually believed any of it for the sake of my parents. So I read this book as someone who rejects Christianity after decades of trying to accept it.
The evangelicals claim 45 was the chosen vessel to do God’s work. God is supposed to be omnipotent. By that very definition, God does not anyone, including evangelicals and definitely including 45, to do anything on God’s behalf. Nor are any of them needed to complete God’s goals - God can do that all alone. God can even do it through Clinton (gasp!). 45 was neither elected by God nor the people. It was the evangelical electorate that voted him in. The rallying by evangelicals around 45 as inerrant, to use the author’s word, and that he essentially knows better than Jesus is troubling. If they were truly objective to their own selves, they’d realize this is dangerously close to The Tower of Babel.
The bottom line is that the Bible can be used to justify any behavior, any choice, and human desire without consequences. And that’s what the evangelicals did. Because 45 was deplorable, and they all knew it, they quote Bible stories and passages ad nauseum to argue why they were right. What they failed to grasp is that nowhere in the Bible does it say that package A (45) will give you all the success you want for life and package B (Clinton) will result in your eternal damnation, which is how they seemed to view the 2016 election and then did every somersault they could to justify this perspective.
Ann Coulter is quoted as saying: “It’s not that we hate the poor; it’s that every time the government tries to help the poor it ends up removing the marvelous incentives life provides to do things like buy an alarm clock, get a job, keep your knees together before marriage, and generally become a productive, happy member of society.” This disgusts me because it’s to imply that all people who aren’t poor buy alarm clocks, get jobs, keep their knees together before marriage, and are generally productive and happy members of society. That’s completely unconsidered. These are not what define poor people and people who aren’t poor. And this is the problem here - this unsubstantiated, uncritical, and totally flawed righteousness. This righteousness is what has come to define political parties, and this is why our politics is an utter failure and moral abomination. This is why it’s important to separate church and state. And let’s remember, the founding fathers also believed in the separation of church and state, having fled Britain because a unified church and state conflicted them that much.
Edward Crane is quoted with: “After decades in the wilderness, the GOP regained control of Congress in 1994 with a platform that called for abolishing the Department of Education. And why not? There is not a word devoted to education in the Constitution, which means that under the Enumerated Powers Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment (for those too dense to understand the former) education is a responsibility of state and local government or, preferably, of no government at all.” If this is so, then why do Republicans care about what and how we teach in schools today? In Texas, teachers are required to educate students on the other side of things like the Holocaust and slavery. What other side???? I cannot fathom how Naziism and slavery can be positioned to children as anything other than morally repugnant, and yet, they are to learn that there is an alternative view. As much as I passionately care about teaching then critical thinking, and maybe I’m the one lacking here, but I also think it’s important to say the Holocaust and slavery were just plain wrong. Yet teachers are told that if they have a book on the Holocaust or slavery, they must also teach a book opposing them. This is what Republicans have done.
This book isn’t a demonization of Republicans, but it does unabashedly admit some of the problems with the party like the ones I’ve just cited here. Mostly, it’s a book that wonders how Republican Christians can possibly justify their support of 45. I often questioned this myself, and it was a big reason (not the only one though) as to why I excised the church from my life. People I love and who themselves love God in word and deed inexplicably voted for 45 on the basis that he was also Christian (including my dad). There is nothing about 45’s words or deeds that are Christian in any way. I was baffled and frustrated. It would’ve been more honest and palatable if they’d admitted they voted for 45 because he wasn’t Clinton.
It seems the author is equally confounded. He talks about how Congressman Mulvaney tried to explain that insulting people fails to garner votes for the party and used a couple of very good examples to make his point. As soon as he did, his very conservative evangelical audience checked out, and he lost them because he wasn’t spewing hateful rhetoric on immigrants. So, are we left to think that to be an acceptable Republican evangelical, you have to be a jerk? According to the author, it was more that they were angry and wanted their anger fueled. They were angry because they felt short shrifted politically for too long by the left liberals (people like me who want to include, including them, rather than exclude anyone at all) until 45 came along - their savior. Boohoo. He says conservatives were outraged at the injustice of political correctness. Well, my definition of outrage of injustice included things like mass incarceration of Blacks, police killings of unarmed young Black men, the nonchalant killing of trans people, especially trans women, and maternal mortality, including the criminalization of doctors who want to help mothers in danger of losing their own lives to save a baby that has less than a ten percent chance of survival. So yeah, anger at perceived censorship (perceived because their freedom of expression was actually still Constitutionally protected) was not a justifiable reason to vote for 45.
He accuses the left of failing to act in good faith over and over again during Obama, but he doesn’t give any concrete examples - just the complaint of himself being painted as a racist Nazi. So, it’s hard to analyze the basis for the anger. The only finger pointed is at political correctness, which, again, is irrational since speech is protected for everyone, including him and the others on the conservative right. How are they the victims??? Sorry, but trying to explain why conservatives picked 45 along this rationale fails the smell test. It just wasn’t a good enough reason. The left thinks we’re all evil, so let’s prove them right by electing an evil man? The left made them the monsters they embrace and embody? C’mon! Where is the personal accountability of being a grownup???? While I appreciate the author’s attempt to make an honest assessment of what happened and why, on this point, he failed. Hurt feelings just aren’t enough. We tell children that sticks and stones are the only things that hurt. Let’s take our own advice.
This brings us to the alt-right. I am one of the blessed people the author describes when referring to someone who’s never heard the term “cuck” or “cuckservative” until reading this book. I’m disgusted by the definition and more disturbed by the people who came up with it (they obviously had to watch enough porn to invent this portmanteau). There is no such thing as White genocide in this country, and Blacks are not inferior in any sense anywhere in the world (living in unwanted circumstances does not make a person inferior, and neither does the former subjugation of slavery!). And we (the left leaning) are not the enemy. So don’t pretend we are. And stop pretending to be the victims. First of all, being White means you automatically have the privilege of power. Secondly, none of us (I hope) are actually anti-White. Being pro-BIPoc does not make us anti-White by default. Being religiously open means being open to all religions and not being anti-Christian as the evangelicals seem to think, as they consistently align their values as protecting their religious freedoms (and only theirs ), as if it was ever on the line in the first place. What they are failing to understand is that we are not trying to exclude their White Christian selves. Rather, we are simply making space for the rest of humankind. There’s nothing wrong with being nice! And guess what? It’s really nice when everyone is nice together.
I thought this was cute: equating pro-gender confusion with liberals. Well, I can tell you that my queer friends are not confused by their gender. The people who are confused is everyone else, and just like we were taught in school and by parents, if you are confused, then ask questions. If anyone is confused, it’s the evangelicals. On the one hand, you’ve got Jeffress saying that 45 is perfect because he doesn’t care about the Sermon on the Mount and that the president’s job is to care about the nation selfishly rather than the world compassionately. On the other hand, evangelicals like him are saying a vote for 45 was a vote for Christ. Make up your minds folks!
By the way, evangelical friends, I invite you to rethink your position on abortion. It’s not a yes/no proposition. It’s not only about unborn babies. It’s a lot more complicated than that, and I’m willing to bet that under today’s legal definition of what constitutes an abortion, many of you have had one yourselves, even if you didn’t realize it. Also, why is it only Herschel Walker who should be excused for actually having paid for an abortion? If you want to ban it for all women, realize that includes your evangelical women and that they also get impregnated accidentally as teens or by rape or by incest. These things don’t only happen to left wing girls and women. Remember that the sun shines on the good and the bad, just as the rain falls on the wicked and the righteous (Matthew 5:45!).
I think I could be good friends with the author. I think he could use a friend, actually, because where he stands - a conservative Christian evangelical who deplores and is ashamed of and by 45 - sounds like a pretty lonely place to be. We don’t have to agree politically on anything to be friends, and chances are, we’re probably don’t. But I bet we could find common ground - like I bet we would agree that everyone deserves civil rights, irrespective of gender, race, or sexual orientation (pretty sure Jesus would say so too, considering he spent most of his time hanging out with the oppressed and fighting the moral majority of his days).
Also, I respect his self-examination and that of his Christian brethren. He might be one of the only public Christians I might actually respect. And I think he nailed it on the head when he said: “Brutality is the new outreach. Subjugation is the new persuasion. Pragmatism is the new morality. Winning is the new religion. But all of this failed to answer that final and important question. Why? Such a simple answer: selfishness.” When it comes right down to it, of all the issues that matters most, it came down to who will line my pockets most, either directly (the congregants) or indirectly (the pastors), according to the author.
The only point in the book I'd ask him to reconsider is his position on Kavanaugh. This seems to be a blind spot for him. It seems clear to me that he thought Clinton should've been removed from office for his egregious misuse of power and sexual harassment of Monica Lewinsky. I totally agree with this and have since it first occurred. So I also question his support of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who is guilty of statutory rape. How is Kavanaugh fit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice by this same measure? (I also have always thought it a travesty that Clarence Thomas is also serving as a Supreme Court Justice given his sexual harassment of Anita Hill - none of these men should have ever been put in office!)
I recommend to the writer reading Mistakes were Made (but not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson as well as How Minds Change: the Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion by David McRaney. These books might also help him make sense of them years before, during, and after 45.
I have to wonder how people unfamiliar with Christianity, its doctrines, and its Bible have found this book. I’m familiar with the principles and the vocabulary (growing the kingdom, saving souls, salvation, witnessing, etc.) because of my upbringing, but it must sound really foreign to everyone else. So I wonder then, which was this book written for? Who is the intended audience? I think it must’ve been for other Christians. Chapter six (more the latter half) is particularly confusing and rife with some logical issues that only make sense if you are a Christian.
I voted for Johnson and was eviscerated by feminist friends for having essentially voted against her, but like the author, I voted my conscience (actually, I voted for the best vice-presidential candidate because I didn't like any of the presidential ones!). Upon reflecting on that election and my own struggles to pick the best candidate, I also wonder, if someone else had run for the Democrats in 2016, would this book even have been written? It’s my opinion it all started with the bitter and downright abhorrence of Clinton. So, if Bernie (or anyone even slightly more palatable than Clinton) had been the Democratic nominee, would 45 been able to ride the evangelical coattails to the Oval Office? Would the country have been so divided?
I end with this thought. My friend said something about how teams always pray for victory as evidence of God’s favor and a promise to glorify him. However, says my friend, God is neither for the winning team or the losing team; God is for all teams because God is for all people. I wholeheartedly agree, assuming there is a real God
This book by a religious conservative is addressed to evangelicals who support Trump. Howe isolates motives like resentment, love of power, selfishness, as if he can reason fellow evangelicals out of political error with a kind of devotional discussion. A better approach might have been to call into question some of the dubious assumptions of far-right religion (the “we own the truth” assumptions) and some of their implications: What do you do if this upbringing shaped you, and now you see the embarrassing feet of clay of beloved elders who mentored you? What do you do when the best definition of a religious conservative today seems to be someone who reads the gospels and sees the Pharisees as the good guys? The author appears to use the word “Christian” only to refer to conservative evangelicals. Does it occur to him that someone might be a serious, devout Christian and also . . . a liberal? Why not concede that conservatives and liberals both can say valid things about politics and faith as long as both groups strive to be fair, open, and well informed? If only Rachel Held Evans had lived to address this topic. What a book she could have written!