One night in 1953, the Reverend Billy Graham awoke at two in the morning, went to his study, and started writing down ideas for the creation of a new religious journal. Graham, then in his mid-thirties, was an internationally renowned evangelist who held revival meetings that were attended by tens of thousands, in stadiums around the world. He had also become the leader of a cohort of pastors, theologians, and other Protestant luminaries who aspired to create a new Christian movement in the United States that avoided the cultural separatism of fundamentalism and the theological liberalism of mainline Protestantism. Harold Ockenga, a prominent minister and another key figure in the movement, called this more culturally engaged vision of conservative Christianity new evangelicalism. Graham believed a serious periodical could serve as the flagship for the movement. The idea for the publication, as he later wrote, was to plant the Evangelical flag in the middle of the road, taking a conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems. The magazine would be called Christianity Today.

During the next several decades, Grahams movement became the dominant force in American religious life, and perhaps the countrys most influential political faction. From the late nineteen-seventies through the mid-eighties, evangelicals became increasingly aligned with the Republican Party, progressively shifting its priorities to culture-war issues like abortion. Today, evangelical Protestants account for approximately a quarter of the U.S. population and represent the political base of the G.O.P. Despite President Trumps much publicized moral shortcomings, more than eighty per cent of evangelicals supported him in the 2016 election. Last week, however, Mark Galli, the ninth editor to lead Christianity Today since its founding, in 1956, published an editorial calling for President Trumps impeachment and removal from office. The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the presidents political opponents, Galli writes. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral. Galli, who will retire from his post early in the new year, implores evangelicals who continue to stand by Trump to remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior.

Galli and other contributors to the magazine have been critical of Trump in the past, but the forcefulness of the editorial took many by surprise. The piece became a sensation, trending online and receiving widespread media coverage. On Twitter, Trump lashed out at the magazine, labelling it a far left publication that has been doing poorly. Grahams eldest son, Franklin, who became the head of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association after his fathers death, in 2018, claimed that his father would have been very disappointed by the piece and had, in fact, voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Its obvious that Christianity Today has moved to the left and is representing the elitist liberal wing of evangelicalism, Franklin wrote on Facebook. On Sunday, Timothy Dalrymple, Christianity Todays president and chief executive officer, issued a statement defending the editorial and reaffirming one of Gallis assertions: that the alliance of American evangelicalism with this presidency has wrought enormous damage to Christian witnessthe heart of believers evangelistic mission.

There has long been a segment of evangelical leaders and commentators who are critical of the President, including Russell Moore, the head of the public-policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention; Peter Wehner, the author of the recent book The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump; and David French, a writer and constitutional lawyer whom anti-Trump conservatives courted, unsuccessfully, to mount a third-party bid against Trump in 2016. The Christianity Today editorial reflects much of their distressabout the moral hypocrisy of Christian supporters of Trump, the damage done to efforts to serve as ambassadors for the gospel in an unbelieving world, and the ways Trump and his Administration have perpetuated racism, xenophobia, and other traits that are antithetical to the God of justice and mercy. In late 2017, the Reverend Timothy Keller, a renowned Presbyterian pastor in New York City, wrote a piece for The New Yorker on the future of evangelicalism, with the headline Can Evangelicalism Survive Donald Trump and Roy Moore? Evangelical used to denote people who claimed the high moral ground; now, in popular usage, the word is nearly synonymous with hypocrite, Keller writes. Last year, a group of evangelical pastors, nonprofit leaders, college presidents, and scholars convened at the Billy Graham Center, at Wheaton College, in Illinois, to discuss ways to revitalize the movement in light of its turn toward Trumpism. The meeting disbanded with little to show for it, but the organizers issued a press release that states that an honest dialogue about the current state of American evangelicalism had occurred.

There has been little to suggest that these rumblings of dissent represent any kind of threat to Trumps political support. Many of these Trump critics might be best understood as part of a more urban, internationalist, and broad-minded lite class within the evangelical movement. In his 2007 book, Faith in the Halls of Power, D. Michael Lindsay, a former sociologist at Rice University and currently the president of Gordon College, distinguished between cosmopolitan and populist evangelicalism. The populist wing of the movement depends on mass mobilization and large-scale democratic action and relies upon a rhetoric of dichotomies (as in good and evil) and appeals to the commonsense concerns of average people, Lindsay writes. He points to prominent figures such as James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, and the pastor and televangelist Joel Osteen as representatives of populist evangelicalism. He describes cosmopolitan evangelicals as having greater access to powerful institutions and writes that the social networks they inhabit are populated by leaders from government, business, and entertainment. The problem for Trump opponents is that, when it comes to electoral sway and cultural influence within evangelicalism, the populists exercise far greater leverage.

Lindsays focus is on documenting the emergence of the lite class of evangelicals. He devotes less attention to the root causes of differing cultural and political attitudes between cosmopolitan and populist evangelicalsthough those causes may hold the key to understanding evangelicalisms turn toward Trumpism. Earlier this year, James L. Guth, a political scientist at Furman University, published a study on the prevalence of populist traits among white evangelicals, including distrust of political institutions, preference for strong leadership, and commitment to majority rule. Guth finds that these qualitiescharacteristics that lead to support for populist leaders like Trumppermeate white evangelicalism. It is a disquieting conclusion and suggests that evangelical support for Trump may be far more deeply entrenched than previously understood. Guth suggests that evangelical backing of Trump is less transactionalabout his ability to, say, deliver conservative appointments to the Supreme Courtand more about certain shared cultural beliefs. Guth writes that white evangelicals share with Trump a multitude of attitudes, including his hostility towards immigrants, his Islamophobia, his racism and nativism, as well as his political style, with its nasty politics and assertion of strong, solitary leadership.

The crucial question, then, is: What is driving these attitudes? In a forthcoming book, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, the sociologists Andrew L. Whitehead, a professor at Clemson University, and Samuel L. Perry, a professor at the University of Oklahoma, propose a cultural framework for understanding support for Trumpism that goes beyond religious categories. Through extensive survey work, they discover that an amalgam of cultural beliefsfusing Christianity with American identity and centered on the belief that America is, and should be, a Christian nationis a better predictor of support for Trump than economic dissatisfaction, political party, ideology, religion, or a host of other possible determining factors. Whitehead and Perry call this framework Christian nationalism and argue that the popularity of these beliefs among white evangelicals explains their support for Trump.

Notably, Whitehead and Perry find that about a quarter of white evangelicals hold beliefs that do not align with Christian nationalism. They also find that though greater religiosity is correlated with Christian-nationalist beliefs, once those beliefs are accounted for, Americans who engaged in more frequent religious practicechurch attendance, prayer, and bible readingwere less likely than their less observant peers to subscribe to political views normally associated with Christian nationalism, such as believing that refugees from the Middle East pose a terrorist threat to the United States, or that illegal immigrants from Mexico are mostly dangerous criminals. In other words, Whitehead and Perry find that the threat to democratic pluralism is not evangelicalism itself but the culture around evangelicalism. The true motivator for Christian nationalists is not actually their religious beliefs but the preservation of a certain kind of social order, one that is threatened by racial minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. Where Christian nationalists seek to defend particular group boundaries and privileges using Christian language, other religious Americans and fellow Christians who reject Christian nationalism tend to oppose such boundaries and privileges, they write.

Their findings highlight serious obstacles for anyone hoping that white evangelicals will abandon Trump, but they also suggest a path forward. Within evangelicalism, cultural influence in the secular world is highly prized as part of advancing the message of Christianity. Christians concerned about Trumpism and worried about the future of their faith, however, may need to turn their focus inward, to reshape the culture of evangelicalism and counter the corrosive influence of Fox News and other demagogic forces that sow division and breed suspicion. Cultural change is dauntingmuch of what ails the evangelical faithful is not entirely under the control of their leadersbut the challenge is not so different from the one Graham contemplated more than sixty years ago, in the middle of the night, as he launched his movement to unify Christian believers and transform them into a positive force for society.

See the original post here:

What it Would Take for Evangelicals to Turn on President Trump - The New Yorker