'Elite' evangelicals

[Leonhard]

There is a very nominal description of forgiveness -- on the verge of missing the purpose as being reconciliation with God.

Word usage like that can make me suspicious as well. None the less I don't think its fair to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with Trump supporters. Its a weird litmus test of Christianity.

[mikewhitney]

Word usage like that can make me suspicious as well. None the less I don't think its fair to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't walk lockstep with Trump supporters. Its a weird litmus test of Christianity.

No one has stated a litmus test for Christianity based on views of Trump. I never expect to hear a sufficient definition of the gospel on the MSM. The MSNBC video didn't fail my expectation. Christianity hasn't been represented decently since the making of A Charlie Brown Christmas.

If it isn't clear on my view of the CT editorial, I just think it was a failure to have any value. He has not resolved the dispute of facts held between the anti-Trumpers and the pro-America people. So Galli only appealed along partisan lines. It appears that this error has become a concern for CT. I don't know if Galli should step down -- but the editorial did appear to be a lapse of judgment if CT is interested in the broad Christian audience.

[demi-conservative]

He also said he is stepping down as editor of Christianity Today.

Good riddance.

[NorrinRadd]

I've read material by Galli in the past though I would not say that I follow him closely by any means. My general impression was that he is a fairly conservative Christian. Before now the incident that popped up most on my radar was when he strongly pushed back against Rob Bell's universalism. The personal attacks like "bird brained" in his thread are unbecoming of descriptions against fellow Christians with whom we disagree though I know saying so will go nowhere here.

As the one who introduced "bird-brained" into this discussion, I affirm that you are correct: Your admonition will go nowhere with me. There are plenty of Christians with whom I disagree strongly on various issues. I would generally not be quick to label them as "bird-brains." Galli deserves the term for his manifest willful ignorance, partisanship, and superciliousness.

[NorrinRadd]

Good riddance.

I was hoping he'd be impeached and removed.

[simplicio]

Here is an interesting opinion piece, by an editor of the magazine First Things. https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/elite-...-religionists/

Which set of elites represent evangelical thought? Jerry Falwell, jr, or Mark Galli?

Does theology play a role in which set of elites rise to influence? The piece lists things which brought the populist elites to prominence: media, entrepreneurialism, politics.

One key point Galli has raised is the differences in the arguments used during the Clinton years and today. But the current arguments did not car weight during the Romney campaign. Maybe a key comparison would be Romney's campaign and Trump's.

[Sparko]

Here is an interesting opinion piece, by an editor of the magazine First Things. https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/elite-...-religionists/

Which set of elites represent evangelical thought? Jerry Falwell, jr, or Mark Galli?

I don't follow any man.

[Cow Poke]

I don't follow any man.

Bacon truck drives slowly past Sparko's house....

[Sparko]

Bacon truck drives slowly past Sparko's house....

I never said anything about trucks.

[NorrinRadd]

Here is an interesting opinion piece, by an editor of the magazine First Things. https://nypost.com/2019/12/20/elite-...-religionists/

Which set of elites represent evangelical thought? Jerry Falwell, jr, or Mark Galli?

Does theology play a role in which set of elites rise to influence? The piece lists things which brought the populist elites to prominence: media, entrepreneurialism, politics.

That was an interesting article. And it probably goes a long way toward explaining why people I otherwise respect, such as Roger Olsen and Ben Witherington III, are anti-Trump. Witherington especially disappointed me by using his Patheos blog to affirm the CT editorial, and then going even further in his interactions in the Comments by pretty much saying that no real Christian could vote for Trump.

One key point Galli has raised is the differences in the arguments used during the Clinton years and today. But the current arguments did not car weight during the Romney campaign. Maybe a key comparison would be Romney's campaign and Trump's.

I don't think I'm quite understanding what you're saying here, so I'll use it as a springboard for my own thoughts:

One complaint from the anti-Trump Evangelicals is that voting for and defending Trump harms our "witness." But I don't recall such concerns when Mitt ran. In fact, some of the current anti-Trump voices were (if I'm understanding their old comments properly) more concerned with helping Mitt tailor his messaging to better appeal to those concerned with Christian orthodoxy. I don't understand this. Clearly Mitt, at least by all appearances, has always been much more "moral" and ethical than Trump. But if he's a Mormon, then he's a member of a pseudo-Christian cult, and therefore an infidel. If people are concerned about the "bad witness" of defending Trump, why were they not concerned that support for Mitt could lead clueless infidels into thinking Mormons are Christians, and cause some to put "faith" in Mormonism's fake Jesus?

[demi-conservative]

?

Does theology play a role in which set of elites rise to influence?

"By contrast, evangelical leaders who have come up through established institutions tend to acquire the training and tastes of the wider American elite. They often disdain the religious and political populism of the base."

The educated elite are largely out of touch with the base, as Galli himself admitted. The split will only grow, and soon these elite will lose influence.

Christian leaders that are highly educated get respect and deference, but they're throwing this away with their barely hidden elitism.

[simplicio]

That was an interesting article. And it probably goes a long way toward explaining why people I otherwise respect, such as Roger Olsen and Ben Witherington III, are anti-Trump. Witherington especially disappointed me by using his Patheos blog to affirm the CT editorial, and then going even further in his interactions in the Comments by pretty much saying that no real Christian could vote for Trump.



I don't think I'm quite understanding what you're saying here, so I'll use it as a springboard for my own thoughts:

One complaint from the anti-Trump Evangelicals is that voting for and defending Trump harms our "witness." But I don't recall such concerns when Mitt ran. In fact, some of the current anti-Trump voices were (if I'm understanding their old comments properly) more concerned with helping Mitt tailor his messaging to better appeal to those concerned with Christian orthodoxy. I don't understand this. Clearly Mitt, at least by all appearances, has always been much more "moral" and ethical than Trump. But if he's a Mormon, then he's a member of a pseudo-Christian cult, and therefore an infidel. If people are concerned about the "bad witness" of defending Trump, why were they not concerned that support for Mitt could lead clueless infidels into thinking Mormons are Christians, and cause some to put "faith" in Mormonism's fake Jesus?

So support of Romney could lead those not immersed in the faith, familiar with biblical principles, might interpret that support as an embrace of Romneys religious ideas? But one common argument made is that the support of the candidate is not an endorsement of the theology. And the dire warning that "a vote for Romney is a vote for the devil" was not enough to clue in those unchurched!

Character counts was a rallying cry for a previous generation of Christians. And it was not just a soundbite, but was backed by supporting ideas. It was a cohesive and consistent argument built on the Christian faith.

An adequate Christian witness does not allow support for Romney, a Mormon, but does for Trump? Does anyone really think Romney would have alienated a key demographic of his support by offering liberal or pro choice names for openings on the bench?

Romney fumbled his run for president by forgetting the lessons learned from recent administrations, a coherent and conscious effort to court Christians. He took the evangelical coalition's support (which includes Catholics) for granted.

[demi-conservative]

"By contrast, evangelical leaders who have come up through established institutions tend to acquire the training and tastes of the wider American elite. They often disdain the religious and political populism of the base."

The educated elite are largely out of touch with the base, as Galli himself admitted. The split will only grow, and soon these elite will lose influence.

Christian leaders that are highly educated get respect and deference, but they're throwing this away with their barely hidden elitism.

The above is about culture. What are the policy differences?

An important policy distinction between Galli's bunch of elites and the base is their position on borders, immigration and 'refugees'.

[demi-conservative]

Evidence:

While Congress voted on an Obamacare fix Friday afternoon, a panel of evangelical thinkers discussed immigration reform at The Heritage Foundation. The panelists complained that the media has propped up various evangelical leaders who claim to speak for millions of Christians, but that not all believers necessarily agree with these leaders’ views on immigration reform.

Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, said years ago denomination heads began speaking to their denominations instead of for them, and immigration reform is another example of the disconnect. He said evangelical leaders should remember that “in a fallen world, good intentions and lofty principles are not sufficient.”
https://www.theaquilareport.com/evan...ration-reform/

Moore responded Monday to Trump’s attack by tweeting a passage from the Old Testament, where God’s prophet Elijah stands up to the enemy king Ahab whose people followed false gods. “You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals,” Elijah says in the Bible, before the God of Israel rains down fire to show his power.

Trump supporters jumped in to attack Moore on social media for his leadership of the Evangelical Immigration Table, a platform for immigration reform signed by hundreds of influential evangelical leaders that includes a path to citizenship or legal status for those who qualify. Moore is a leader of the group along with presidents of the National Association of Evangelicals, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, and evangelical humanitarian relief organizations.
https://time.com/4323009/donald-trum...-christianity/

Those who frequent blogs and outlets know about the disagreement on immigration between Christians, and don't need more examples.

It is obvious in hindsight. There has been a big conflict on immigration, and some are extremely upset that the other side has 'won' by supporting a winning candidate that agrees with them.

[NorrinRadd]

So support of Romney could lead those not immersed in the faith, familiar with biblical principles, might interpret that support as an embrace of Romneys religious ideas? But one common argument made is that the support of the candidate is not an endorsement of the theology. And the dire warning that "a vote for Romney is a vote for the devil" was not enough to clue in those unchurched!

I never heard the "a vote for Romney..." line. And I agree that support of the candidate is
not an endorsement of the candidate's theology -- or morality, IMO. ISTM it is the judgmental anti-Trumpers who are making the "vote for = agree with completely" argument.

Character counts was a rallying cry for a previous generation of Christians. And it was not just a soundbite, but was backed by supporting ideas. It was a cohesive and consistent argument built on the Christian faith.

Yes, and I went along with it. I still would, but henceforth that will be much lower priority for me.

An adequate Christian witness does not allow support for Romney, a Mormon, but does for Trump?

Not what I was saying. I voted for both -- Romney a bit lukewarmly, Bad Orange Man quite reluctantly.

Does anyone really think Romney would have alienated a key demographic of his support by offering liberal or pro choice names for openings on the bench?

Romney fumbled his run for president by forgetting the lessons learned from recent administrations, a coherent and conscious effort to court Christians. He took the evangelical coalition's support (which includes Catholics) for granted.

I'm not sure how he could have "courted" us without repenting of or lying about his heretical beliefs. AFAIK, those were the only impediments to voting for him. We had no doubts about his morals or ethics, or his Pro-Life views.