Surprise surprise! While Donald Trump’s poll numbers are falling among most Americans in the wake of recent revelations of his attacks on women, Evangelicals are sticking by him. According to Dan Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute who recently polled evangelicals,
Among religious groups, white evangelical protestants are the only ones who are standing firm right now.
In fact, 65 percent of evangelicals are firmly in Donald’s corner even though Donald himself has confessed that he does not embrace the so-called morality of evangelicals.
Every time an Evangelical gets onto T.V., they tell us in no uncertain terms that their aim is to “bring morality back to governing.” This is the alleged purpose of groups like the Moral Majority, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, and The American Family Association—just to name a few. These organizations and the constituency they represent have led a “hard-bitten” fight against every form of progress in America, touting “biblical family values.” And yet, here they are all lined up firmly behind the most immoral, depraved, corrupt, lying, unethical, dishonest (too many adjectives?), human being ever to run for president of the United States.
Why?
Believe it or not, the answer isn’t morality. granted, those are the words they will use when you question them, but the reason is power. And that’s the real reason they will give when asked. To be clear, it’s not the denotative definition of the words they use, it’s the connotative definition of the words they use.
Christianity is “under attack…” which is Evangelical-speak for “they’re forcing me to acknowledge other religions (power—the ‘only true religion’). There’s an attack on “traditional values…” (Power—they no longer get to call the shots on what’s ‘right’ and what isn’t). He represents “Christian” values (he’s power hungry and will do anything to keep that power). And the big one: He’s not Hillary Clinton (who, unlike Trump, actually attends church). Hillary represents to them a powerful woman who has abandoned Christian dogma and left the kitchen, put on shoes, and chosen not to breed like a bunny rabbit—and go out and do something powerful with her life.(Again, power. She is saying that she is willing to live her own life and that disempowers Evangelical men.)
So this has nothing to do with morality.
Religion has rarely concerned itself with morality. Throughout history the most immoral organizations known to humankind have been affiliated with religion. Even the great atheists such as Chairman Mao, Stalin, and some would say Hitler, ruled through the church. They would never have met their ultimate goals had it not been for the corroboration of the religious organizations under them. Like their great leaders, church leaders craved power. To that end, they used their institutions to promote the “values” of these immoral men even though it was in stark contrast to everything that Jesus taught.
And this is exactly what Jesus meant when he used the term “Hypocrite.” Remember the story Jesus told about the hypocrite who stood and prayed out loud: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-and-spend liberal.” (Last part added for cultural relevance.) Only we know they were/are. This story comes from the book of Luke, and it includes the story of the Rich Young Ruler (who asked Jesus what more he could do to make sure he inherited eternal life—and Jesus told him to sell all that he had.)
In essence, this is the story of Jesus: a constant challenge to the “evangelicals” of his day.
At this point I want to be perfectly clear about something. The gospels tend to have an evangelical bent to them as well. For example, they portray Jesus as having problems with the “Pharisees,” which they use as a catch-all for the rich and powerful (unless you’re reading John, the Fox “news: of the gospels. Here the authors want us to believe that it was the “Jews” who were the problem). But here’s the irony. The Pharisees were friends of the poor and downtrodden. That Jesus may have battled with them is a given, since Jesus tended to battle with most people. That being said, arguing (debating the Law) among the Pharisees was an Olympic sport that they all took seriously.
The real enemy—the group of people Jesus hated the most, were the Jewish elite: chief among them, the Sanhedrin. The only way I can think of to describe this dichotomy is to compare the socioeconomic politics of Jesus day to our own. While America isn’t “occupied” per se as Israel was by Rome, it is ruled by an oligarchy, just as America is ruled by the One Percent.
In Jesus’ Judea, Rome ruled supreme controlling every aspect of Jewish life… even in Jewish religious practices. To the Jew, nothing was more sacred than the office of the high priest. It was the high priest alone who could enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement and represent Israel before God. Yet that position, held by Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas, was bought. They bribed the Roman prefect to hold the most sacred office in the land—and they held this post only so long as they were willing to proclaim Rome’s legitimacy… a.k.a. ‘capitalism.’
The Great Sanhedrin, Israel’s Supreme Court in Jerusalem, was overseen by Rome. Their ultimate purpose was not to offer justice and mercy to those seeking it (as Jesus defined God’s role); but to guarantee Rome that there would be no Jewish uprising.
It was in this world that the Pharisees stood between the people and the power elite; demanding the justice and mercy of God be shown to ALL the people (especially the poor). Ironically, we have no record of Jesus attacking a power monger for attacking another power monger—but we have volumes of him railing against the mistreatment of the poor and powerless.
And this is where it comes down. Evangelicals don’t represent Jesus; they represent everything Jesus despised. Jerry Falwell Jr., Ralph Reed, James Dobson… these aren’t men of God… they are the High Priests who bribed their way into office. Jesus knew what they were really after: power. And they were willing to seize this power no matter who it hurt, even if it meant hurting God’s little children (or as Jesus called them—sheep). To that end they will fight any force that would threaten that power… even if that force was God itself. And that’s what we’re seeing now. This isn’t about God, or about Jesus: it’s about power.