Trump and evangelical idolatry

The front-runner as the Republican Party’s candidate for president is a thrice-married billionaire whose stance on abortion has changed like the wind and who doesn’t support any of the culture war themes that have defined Christian involvement over the past 40 years. But among self-identified evangelicals, Donald Trump is actually ahead — way ahead — of evangelicals Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Dr. Ben Carson. Does that make sense?

Well, no, unless you consider what many of them really want — according to Ryan Dennison and quoting the Washington Post’s Joseph Locante, a "protector in chief."

The culture war, which got started for real in the 1960s but reached electoral status in the 1980s, at bottom always was a turf war, with anyone seen as a threat to some people’s superior economic class status needing to be neutralized without pity or mercy. Let’s not forget that tough talk, especially against the Soviet Union, helped Ronald Reagan win two terms as president, nor the large number of evangelicals who listened to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk-show hosts who made a mint trashing everyone in sight.

Thus, those who decry Trump’s status among Christians due to his bombast simply haven’t been paying attention.

Moreover, this should hardly be news to Bible readers, as ancient Israel on at least two occasions in its history craved a strongman. One was the monarchy, which was never God’s design in the first place but demanded by the people because they wanted to be like other nations that also had kings. The other was a misinterpretation of the promise of a Messiah, whom they hoped would expel the occupying Roman Empire. (Not for no reason did Jesus never volunteer the information that He was the Messiah.)

Thus, we’re looking at not just a political but also a theological issue — theological in that people really don’t want to trust God for anything and believing that being armed to the teeth and keeping “outsiders” out will lead to security and prosperity. Can anyone say “idolatry?”

It’s likely that Christians’ support for Trump is connected to their relative power and prosperity in American society — when you have it you tend to want to keep it. No matter what. And that’s the real problem.

Objectification thanks to ‘modesty culture’

Recently author Jefferson Bethke made a video "How Culture and Religion Both Objectify Women" during which he mentioned that even a focus on encouraging women to dress "modestly" still transforms them into objects. That actually makes sense to me.

You can perhaps understand a girl's embarrassment when she's asked to kneel to determine if a skirt she's wearing is "too short" -- that is, touching the floor or not. How much does that matter in an eternal sense? Really? Is that something we want to emphasize, their being judged on how they're dressed? Of course there's good "taste" -- which I think the Apostle Paul meant -- but to determine such things with hard-and-fast rules misses the point.

Rules, of course, often skirt over the heart of the matter, that we're not to treat each other as pieces of meat. It's very unfair to suggest that a woman hide her femininity for the sake of men who don't want to take responsibility for their actions or attitudes.

Two personal reflections: The early-to-mid-1970s "granny skirt" craze took place when I was a pre-teen, and since my female schoolmates were generally more mature than most girls I was drawn to that -- and them. Of course, the skirts went down to the ankles so very little skin showed, but to this day I find such lengths, including, and perhaps especially, evening gowns, incredibly attractive.

Then, a few years ago I found myself being "turned on" by a woman I met through a church singles ministry whom I've never seen wearing anything but casual, let alone in a dress. A couple of months later, when we were planning to go out on a date (the attraction turned out to be mutual), she told me that she had very little in dressy clothes.

So let's not focus on "externals."

Objectification thanks to ‘modesty culture’

Recently author Jefferson Bethke made a video "How Culture and Religion Both Objectify Women" during which he mentioned that even a focus on encouraging women to dress "modestly" still transforms them into objects. That actually makes sense to me.

You can perhaps understand a girl's embarrassment when she's asked to kneel to determine if a skirt she's wearing is "too short" -- that is, touching the floor or not. How much does that matter in an eternal sense? Really? Is that something we want to emphasize, her being judged on how she's dressed? Of course there's good "taste" -- which I think the Apostle Paul meant -- but to determine such things with hard-and-fast rules misses the point.

Rules, of course, often skirt over the heart of the matter, that we're not to treat each other as pieces of meat. It's very unfair to suggest that a woman hide her femininity for the sake of men who don't want to take responsibility for their actions or attitudes.

Two personal reflections: The early-to-mid-1970s "granny skirt" craze took place when I was a pre-teen, and since my female schoolmates were generally more mature than most girls I was drawn to that -- and them. Of course, the skirts went down to the ankles so very little skin showed, but to this day I find such lengths, including, and perhaps especially, evening gowns, incredibly attractive.

Then, a few years ago I found myself being "turned on" by a woman I met through a church singles ministry whom I've never seen wearing anything but casual, let alone in a dress. A couple of months later, when we were planning to go out on a date (the attraction turned out to be mutual), she told me that she had very little in dressy clothes.

So let's not focus on "externals."

Lessons from black history, part 2

“You must know something I don’t know.”

That was the reaction I got when I responded to a white conservative fellow Christian who was exulting that George W. Bush had been declared the winner of the 2000 presidential election that I had voted for Al Gore. Apparently it never occurred to him that Christians don’t uniformly support the modern conservative agenda.

Well, he was ultimately right. as most African-Americans, even Bible-believers, don’t. (And by most, I’m referring to over 90 percent.) There are reasons.

To most African-Americans, “conservatism” is more literal — it represents an unwillingness to share political power with those not of that purview because their history in this country by definition reflects a need for social change.

To wit, who supported slavery? Who opposed civil-rights? (And both were “endorsed” by the Bible, by the way.)

It’s also a reason that blacks who promote the conservative agenda are often considered “sellouts.” In many cases it’s literally true in that a few have actually accepted money available through conservative foundations to do so — after all, that was also done under slavery, with “house Negroes” receiving better treatment than those in the field and squelching any hint of rebellion.

So what does this have to do with “black history?” Let me turn that around: What doesn’t it have to do with it?

Lessons from black history

This marks the annual recognition of Black History Month, when special attention is paid to the achievements, individually and collectively, of African-Americans.

That said, while you do have a burst of references to the “first” person of that heritage to make some milestone — and, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of those — studying history isn’t, and shouldn’t be, about “trivia.” We do so also to learn lessons about where we were, how we get there — and, ultimately, how to move forward.

Two years ago I was a guest on an internet radio program talking about the subject, and the host and I talked about several figures: Jackie Robinson, Doug Williams and Miles Davis.

Robinson’s place as the first African-American to play Major League Baseball in the modern era is secure, but that had to do with more than just his presence. Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey did want to integrate the game and chose Robinson do to it not simply because he was a great player, which he was; rather, Rickey had two other things in mind.

One, he wanted to build a cohesive team with someone or something to rally around, with the intention that if someone called Robinson a name other players would stick up for him and, thus, build camaraderie. Two, because black baseball was more exciting in those days, Rickey wanted to reach out to the black public, and its money, by bring black players in.

In the case of Williams, the quarterback for the Washington Redskins in the late 1980s, opportunity was knocking. When the Redskins were about to face the Denver Broncos in the 1988 Super Bowl, gums were flapping about Williams’ race — you know, “can a black quarterback win the big one?”, a question I personally found insulting. Someone asked me for a prediction, and I called a Washington victory because “Doug Williams will have the game of his life.” Result: A 42-10 laugher, with Williams throwing four touchdown passes in the second quarter (still a record for not only a quarter but also a half).

Davis, the jazz trumpeter and composer who reinvented music a few times, moving from bebop to “cool” and later fusion, ignored critics and waited for them to catch up to him. (Which they did.) Rather than focus upon whatever might make him a star, he blazed his own path, where others eventually followed. That’s his legacy.

And these are the kind of things we should look for.

What it might take …

Every year for the past three years I’ve participated in the pit orchestra for the spring musical at a local suburban high school, and I’ve been asked to do it again this year.

What’s important about that is that I’m the only “person of color” involved in the production and one of the very few who even attends these plays.

For the past few years I’ve attended a number of dances, mostly partner-based but also a singles dance where having a partner is often optional. At the partner dances I’m approached for dances at least twice a night, and at the singles dance a number of women have taken a shine to me, some even giving me their phone numbers without my even asking.

Even here, where I’m often the lone African-American, I’m considered part of the furniture. Am I OK with that? Sure, because I’ve been relating across those lines for decades.

Can’t I “bring more people in?” Not really, because I don’t see that as the purpose.

I sometimes wonder if part of the problem with racism in this country has to do with an unwillingness of many African-Americans to step out of their comfort zones and build relationships — real relationships, on a one-to-one level — with people outside that community and go to places where race is basically irrelevant.

I think the mistake it’s made recently in addressing what’s known as “micro-aggressions” is the idea that whites should understand that some of their remarks might be interpreted as racist.

But that’s just it — they don’t, often because they don’t have contact with African-Americans and thus understanding that history. And as such, a certain amount of grace is required.

And what about those situations that are willfully, even intentionally, hurtful? I’ve never allowed myself to be suckered, which is what my enemies want.

So as a result, I feel the freedom to go wherever, whenever without regard to my race. Something to be said for that.

Donald Trump, the Republican Party and ‘screw you’ politics

If the national Republican Party isn’t feeling the heat now, it should be.

With tycoon Donald Trump far and away the leader for the party’s nomination for president but seen as a drag on the party overall, more than a few GOP “establishment” figures have expressed horror that he might actually win. They believe that Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, most notoriously suggesting that Muslims not be allowed to emigrate here thanks to fears of terrorism, possibly has the potential to scare voters off the GOP, even in Congress. They may be right about that.

Here’s the problem, however: If that happens, the party — or perhaps more accurately, the conservatism that dominates it — has only itself to blame.

How so? Well, consider what I refer as the “screw you” — more accurately, a more vulgar term I as a Christian no longer use — mentality in politics where an opponent is considered not only wrong but fundamentally evil and not worth even having a discussion with.

It’s probably not new in American history, but I first noticed it coming into being with the “religious right” in the 1980s, with its talk of defeating “liberals.” Later came the advent of right-wing talk radio, which has cowed more than a few politicians because of the vehemence its hosts display on the air — and translating that to its extremely loyal audiences. In such situations folks try to dictate rather than negotiate, almost as if defeating a perceived enemy is the highest good, when we “get rid of ‘them.’” GOP candidates for the past few decades have used that attitude to rise to power because it’s what their constituency wants.

Or at least they think it does.

See, if you’re perceived as part of an “establishment” you’re already considered part of the problem even though you may believe and say the “right” things. But the GOP base really isn’t interested in either politics or governance; it simply wants its way and considers compromise, without which you can’t run a country properly, surrender.

And that’s where Trump comes in, making those outrageous statements that nevertheless connect with voters. I won’t say that he truly believes what he’s saying, but he’s saying publicly what they believe privately, which is the secret to his appeal regardless of the facts on the ground. In other words, he doesn’t have to get it correct or even take principled positions because he understands that audience. Remember that he, not even a candidate at the time, was one of the first to question President Obama’s eligibility for the presidency in the first place.

Evangelical leaders are especially feeling threatened, with a number of them intending to meet to determine a candidate to endorse or rally around. The trouble is that they haven’t had much voice in the past decade with many of their empires crumbling due to scandal or irrelevance, and Trump has shown little if any interest in addressing cultural issues such as abortion or gay marriage as it is.

Liberals and Democrats are salivating at the idea of the possible — at this point, even likely — immolation of the GOP because might not have to do anything. “We’re not them,” they may be thinking — which is ironic, because their opponents have always thought the same way.