Why Christians vote Trump

The honest answer to the question why (some) Christians will vote for Donald Trump in the forthcoming US Presidential Elections, is I genuinely have no idea.


But here is an attempt to understand how it is that apparently nearly 80% of evangelical Christians in the US will vote for the divisive Republican candidate this coming month. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/july/pew-most-evangelicals-will-vote-trump-against-clinton.html

It would seem to be a question of 1. Standpoint, 2. Extreme political factions and 3. US conservative evangelical tropes.

1. Standpoint.

Everyone has one. My Twitter feed is full of slightly left of centre English Anglican clerics (with a healthy smattering of soft evangelicals, educated literary types and environmentalist/left wing commentators) so naturally it seems inconceivable to me that any Christian could vote for Donald Trump. I found it difficult even to look through images of his face to post one on this blog, without feeling physically uncomfortable, in a kind of skin crawling way. 

However, my digital environment is, like most people's, self selected. My physical environment is much more mixed, but even having said that, I haven't met a single Christian, or even person in the UK (so far) who thinks voting for Trump would be anything less than disastrous for US, not to mention global, politics.

With his blustering, hectoring manner, http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/26/13068010/presidential-debate-2016-trump-clinton-interruptions lack of any apparent spiritual understanding http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/18/politics/trump-has-never-sought-forgiveness/ and his objectionable views on women http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/ and minorities, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-way-donald-trump-speaks-toand-aboutminorities/481155/  Donald Trump would seem to lack any kind of noticeable match with the servant hearted, gentle, humble, peaceable and wise Jewish teacher known as Jesus of Nazareth. So how could a follower of Jesus be persuaded that Trump was the best candidate? But perhaps that's just my standpoint. 

2. Political Factions.

US politics is fatally dualistic (or even duel-istic). It's like a wrestling match. You have Democrats in one corner, Republicans in the other, each trying to land blows on each other. I know we're not much better in the UK, but I like to think we're marginally less dreadful. The entire present US Presidential campaigning consists of hugely over funded populist rallies massaging the cult of personality, shallow rhetoric and to the death 'debates' on live TV. There's been no sense in which one side learns from the other or engages in Third Way finding. News networks and commentators react to the slightest hint of weakness and whip up the media into a frenzy. A few rare people only are taking a moment to reflect, consider or look beneath the instant headline. 

If you're a Trump-supporting Republican, you're stirred up by your side's moral fear of the US 'going to the dogs', of being attacked by a terrorist who is likely to be a Muslim or a Mexican, and general right wing hysteria around socially progressive policies leading to moral disintegration. Your whole standpoint is to fear and mistrust a Democrat, a foreigner, or a person who doesn't conform to a certain stereotype. You're susceptible to promises to 'Make America Great Again', whatever that means. 

Great is a loaded word, surely? Especially for Christians. If you're in the Republican faction (even if you're a Christian, apparently) it is going to be difficult to see outside your faction, though some have managed it, which is noteworthy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-doubt-donald-trumps-chances-in-november_us_57ac6953e4b0ba7ed23f29c0

3. US conservative evangelical tropes. 

This is a much more pernicious factor, it seems to me. Since the publishing of a 2005 video of Trump making casual comments about how easy it was for him to grope women https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html some female evangelicals have called on their male counterparts to cease supporting Trump http://www.christianpost.com/news/evangelical-women-leaders-disgusted-beth-moore-defending-trump-sexual-assault-170714/.

However, this looks unlikely, which reflects how gender still plays a large part in US white, evangelical intertwined strands of belief, or tropes. Complementarianism, the idea that men and women are equal in status, but created for different roles, in its extreme form, seems to fear any woman who doesn't easily conform to a perceived female stereotype. In addition, innate biblical conservatism fears equal rights discourse, because it appears to lead to the full acceptance of women and gays in every walk of life. This is seen to be destabilising. In a bad way.

Enter Hillary Clinton. In terms of shibboleths of the Religious Right, Hillary is beyond the pale, of course. You could say that even where evangelical support for Trump is grudging, at least he represents something less scary than Hillary - a woman, Democrat AND equal rights campaigner. The sense of needing to protect the US from this dreadful female, who will literally tip the US over the precipice into full blown secularism, is almost palpable. The fact that Clinton consistently cites her Methodist background, with its roots in the socially dynamic witness of John Wesley and the Holiness Movement, is neither here nor there, so strong are the tropes that narrowly define this certain type of evangelical opposition to her.

Thankfully, Evangelicalism is splintering in the US. Progressives such as Jim Wallis (sojo.net) Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) and Rachel Held Evans (rachelheldevans.com) are redefining what being an evangelical means, even dropping the word altogether, in favour of re-centring on the person and life of the radical Jesus, champion of the poor, and liberator of humanity from all forms of oppression.

Despite the factors of standpoint, factions and evangelical tropes, I do not understand US Christians who support Trump. I have tried and failed. Although no one is beyond the pale (people thought Zacchaues was, till Jesus went to his house for tea) some people appear, on the basis of bringing forth bad fruit, to be unfit for the office of President of the United States. Trump is one of them. 

Annoyingly, it would be just like Jesus, were he around in person today, to tell a parable about the 'Good Trump Supporter', a modern day 'Good Samaritan' for squeamish English church types like me. That would be awkward. 

In the absence of such a parable, though, I can only say to the 80% of Evangelicals who still think Trump's a viable candidate; nay, even God's candidate: come on guys...

Trump? It rhymes with dump and lump. I mean, come on guys....

"E" is for Evangelism

This week brought news that Pentecost 2016 is to be set aside in the Church of England as a time of specific prayer for evangelism:

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/archbishops.set.aside.pentecost.2016.in.bid.to.evangelise.england/78216.htm

Evangelism is one of those E words, like Evangelical, that can cause confusion, even inside the Church, as a previous post explored: http://parttimepriest.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Evangelical 

From the Greek evangelion, it means gospel, or Good News, and suggests that if you're a Christian you'll want in some way to share the Christian message with others. To some people, both inside and outside the Church, this can come across as:

a) very scary
b) wholly inappropriate
c) thankfully only for super keen Christians

However, the reality is that with the decline of traditional ways of passing on the faith (you go to Sunday School because your parents did, and their parents did, and their parents did, etc.) it's going to become more and more the norm to find intentional ways of sharing the Christian message, because we in the church can't just assume that other people are somehow getting the message anyway.

The reaction of clerics on social media to the news that the Archbishop of Canterbury is writing to all 11,300 C of E clergy urging them to 'engage' with the 2016 evangelism project has been mixed, viz.

1. At last - what a great idea 
2. What does he think we've been doing for the last n years?
3. Cringe.....whatever happened to good old fashioned holiness/authenticity?

It's the same with all initiatives that come down from on high - they can either look like the Church behaving desperately, teaching us to suck eggs, or providing us with exactly what's been missing for years.

Reactions to the E word are all about Churchmanship. 

I went into the Church full of evangelistic/fresh expressions zeal and found that really what 'the Church' wanted was services taken, sermons given and pastoral work sensitively carried out. When you are channelled in this direction, it is hardly surprising that explicit evangelisation becomes less forthcoming. 

Then again, there is such a thing as pre-evangelism (a kind of preparing the ground), and weddings, funerals, baptism preparation and any community/school event is likely to have a large element of this anyway. So in this particular small, semi rural, multi parish setting I feel like we're doing evangelism and we're not doing evangelism...

If society is becoming less religious, less clued in about church, then pre-evangelism is going to be more and more needed. In the 80s we thought nothing of 'putting on an event' in a church hall, inviting 'non-Christians' (who were often loosely connected with the church anyway) to hear an evangelistic speaker, and expecting several to respond. I can't imagine that working today.

My first experience of evangelism up close and personal was at age 16. It was bracing, to say the least, but then thankfully you're often up for bracing new experiences when you're 16. I was a spiritually disengaged church-going teenager and had been invited, along with best friend, "E" (yes, weirdly, her name also began with E) to 'an evangelistic event' like the one detailed above, only on a larger scale - Wembley Arena, no less. 

The place was crawling with Christian youth and full of worship bands, missionary stalls and budding evangelists. "E" was my best friend at the time -17, bolshy, funny and sceptical, and had no church background. She and I were wandering around in the foyer looking at stalls when a young guy stopped us and started making conversation, based on the T shirt "E" was wearing; a T shirt featuring the London Marathon, which her uncle had just run in.

'Did you run the London Marathon?' asked our keen guy, eying the T shirt (he was older than us - maybe mid 20s). My friend replied no, it had been her uncle who ran it. 

'I ran the Marathon reciting bible verses all the way round', said our eager conversation partner, introducing himself as Kevin. I could see the word 'weirdo' passing across "E"'s face.
'Really?' she said sarcastically.

Undeterred, our young evangelist then launched into an unrelenting discussion with "E" about the bible, belief and Christianity, demolishing all her prejudices and engaging her in one topic after another till I felt really embarrassed, and she expressed herself to be very tired. A hint that a lesser, perhaps subtler Christian might have taken. But not our Kevin. 

'I'm tired too', he said, proceeding to inform us that he had been up till 3am that morning talking to a group of people in a night club about Jesus. He was nothing if not persistent. After eventually reducing "E" to tears; no mean feat, given her sparkiness and propensity for loud displays at parties, he then turned his attention to me and said, more or less, 'And what are we going to do about you?' Feeling reasonably smug, I cited my life-long church going habits, but this cut absolutely no ice with Kevin.

From goodness knows where, he started talking about romantic relationships and inner and outer congruence, honesty, holiness, sacrifice; the works. I was gobsmacked because he weirdly seemed to know exactly what made me tick and it was like nothing I'd ever come across before in my sheltered, middle class, polite, studious church-going existence. It would be an understatement to say I felt as though I had met the truth of myself face to face, and after some further soul searching, I came away with the deep and shocking realisation that becoming/being a Christian actually necessitated forgiveness, grace and beginning a completely new life. 

I'm sad to say that I lost touch with "E" so I don't know if she stuck with our new found faith. As for me, I was hooked, and never looked back. The messenger might have been a little crazy, but the message was dynamite, because it revealed an actual spiritual reality that I hadn't bargained on at all. Who knew church was actually about something (someone) REAL? 

In effect, I had been evangelised.

I wouldn't recommend the approach of Kevin. I later found out he was training for the Anglican priesthood and six years down the line spotted his name on a list of C of E Chaplains that attended the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Perhaps he'd mellowed by then. Perhaps his abrasive, no-holds-barred approach to evangelism was well suited to tough young athletes. I expect he'd be delighted at the Pentecost 2016 Evangelism project. In some ways I pray to have his boldness, but on reflection, if I should, in my enthusiasm for sharing the Good News, reduce an unwitting parishioner to tears, I might ironically discover that the C of E, whilst desiring the fire of Pentecost, does require from its priests a bit more pastoral sensitivity than Kevin the Evangelist was blessed with.

Lent for Extroverts 34: The 'E' label

Alex Baker cartoon. Rather brilliant.

Labels are at once necessary and restricting, and Christian labels none more so.

I suppose even if we refuse to label ourselves, others are doing so the moment they meet us, and we're probably doing the same mentally.

I recall going to an evening ecclesiastical/social event - you know, the ones where you don't know whether to wear clericals ('I am serious about my vocation') or a pretty dress ('I am a normal human being'). There were clerics there I didn't know so while I sipped my white wine and made polite vicar small talk I played 'Guess the Christian label' inside my head by assessing clothes, partners and general demeanour. Turns out I was 100% accurate. Isn't that dreadful?

So even if we don't like them, labels are currency of the Church of England, sadly. And occasionally we shoot ourselves in the foot by complaining about someone else's type of label and making out they're less Christian than we are:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2013/mar/22/evangelicals-jesus-cheesus-bang-head

This can take a number of forms, depending on the label of the person doing the complaining. If the person complaining wears the (broadly speaking) label 'Liberal', as in 'Liberal Catholic', they will take offence at those with the (broadly speaking) label of 'Evangelical' when they perceive that some of the churches with the 'E' label appear to have young people in them, of whom some have highly paid jobs and a tendency to clap along to songs in church, in the manner of joy and happiness and generally having a good time. They assume, wrongly, that nothing troubles these jolly people and that they are not really proper, GRITTY disciples.

Obtusely, they ignore the fact that the word 'Evangelical' is so broad that it's quite hard to define it any longer. Of course some will argue with this statement, saying that those who find it hard to define the label are no longer part of the label. Those ones must be given the 'L' label now. As in The Sojourners, the Red Letter Christians and anyone who questions the C of E's current position on human sexuality.

I admit that people with the 'E' label do bring it on themselves sometimes. They tend to patronise you when talking about the bible; they assume no one else is doing mission except themselves, which is irritating and also untrue. They think that nothing is happening if there's silence in church and engage in some terrible name dropping. Though I suppose that's  a habit of most labels; it's just you name drop different people ('Rowan might have a job lined up for me') ('Nicky Gumbel gave me a lift home once').... (By the way, only one of these last sentences is true of me).

So I do love a bit of guess work, and it can be very funny: you know there's an Evangelical male hand shake and shirt/chino outfit, don't you? But when you get to know people, labels soon become inaccurate, unworkable, and at worst, unkind.

Remembering Christina Rossetti

Remembered today in the Church of England Lectionary is Christina Rossetti, poet and sister of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, of the famous Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, which wrote and painted its way through the 1840s to the 1880s, producing such classics as Millais' Ophelia and Holman Hunt's The Hireling Shepherd.

Christina was never a formal member of the Brotherhood, Victorian gender roles disallowing such such a thing, but unofficially she was an important member of the inner circle, whose considerable poetic prowess revealed a life of rather sombre self denial and consequent devoted Christian faith.

She was twice unlucky in love. Her engagement to the minor Pre-Raphaelite, James Collinson, was called off after he became a Roman Catholic, and her love for Charles Cayley came to nothing when she became convinced he was not a Christian.

Her poetry is harshly uncompromising about the brevity of life and sweetly sad about the certainty of death.
                                When I am dead, my dearest,
                                               Sing no sad songs for me;
                                               Plant thou no roses at my head,
                                               Nor shady Cyprus tree.
                                               Be the green grass above me
                                               With showers and dewdrops wet;
                                               And if thou wilt, remember,
                                               And if thou wilt, forget.

She can do sensuous too, though, as in Goblin Market - a poem about female desire and temptation (is it God or patriarchal society which determines what is forbidden?) 

                              She cried 'Laura' up the garden,
                                             Did you miss me?
                                             Come and kiss me.
                                             Never mind my bruises,
                                             Hug me, kiss me, suck my juices
                                             Squeezed from goblin fruits for you,
                                             Goblin pulp and goblin dew.
                                             Eat me, drink me, love me:
                                             For your sake I have braved the glen
                                             And had to do with goblin merchant men
(definitely not a children's poem...)

For my money she is best when she turns her thwarted feeling towards the consolation of faith, as in the middle verse of the perfectly constructed A Better Resurrection:

                                           My life is like a faded leaf,
                                           My harvest dwindled to a husk;
                                           Truly my life is void and brief
                                           And tedious in the barren dusk;
                                           My life is like a frozen thing,
                                           No bud nor greenness can I see:
                                           Yet rise it shall - the sap of Spring;
                                           O Jesus, rise in me.

Her passionate nature was drawn to both ends of the Anglican spectrum - first Evangelical, then Tractarian, so today there is much to celebrate - Anglicanism in all its many hues; a woman railing against patriarchy; a Pre-Raphaelite poet and a Christian who found that putting one's hopes in this life alone is ultimately futile.

THE IDIOTS' GUIDE TO ANGLICAN CHURCHMANSHIP

I wonder what flavour the next Archbishop of Canterbury will be? 

Even now, in vestries, parish halls and pubs, small groups of interested parties are weighing up the options and making pronouncements about the need for one churchmanship to prevail over another. We must get 'our man' in.

The papers will pit imagined candidates against each other, taking bets on possible outcomes and painting things in broad brush strokes for easy identification - 'Catholic', 'Liberal' or 'Evangelical' - terms which are at best only understood by select church people and at worst, properly understood by nobody.

So in an attempt to clarify, or you may say, muddy the waters still further, here is:

The Idiots' guide to Anglican Churchmanship - the three main types, the highs, the lows, the complications and the mix ups.

(Anglo-)Catholic

Highs: Incense. Barring a really sore throat, I'm all for it. Why not use all your senses in worship? The sense of smell is the only one of the five sense directly linked to the emotional control centre of the brain. Which explains why I suddenly thought the presence of God had come upon me while watching my son play football the other day. In a garden nearby someone was burning fresh apple wood - it just smelt like divine worship.

Lows: Unhealthy interest in arcane nomenclature of ecclesiastical vestments. To cotta or not to cotta? That is (apparently) the question.
Grown men in lace......................................enough said.

Liberal


Highs: Permission to use your brain.
In other disciplines the word 'liberal' has a proud pedigree - it means freedom after all - so why is it such a dirty word among some? I've concluded that it's a 'good' word in direct proportion to to the extent to which you perceive yourself to be in a minority, or in a group that in some way has been historically restricted. So 'liberal' has always been good news for women who feel called to Ordination. This fact alone complicates churchmanship considerably.

Lows: A kind of scrupulousness and over-sensitivity about the more extreme and invigorating expressions of worship. The liberal middle ground can feel a bit safe. There's a jumpiness about intense Anglo-Catholic passions on the one hand, and on the other, a nervousness about heartfelt evangelical/charismatic songs which contain any hint of penal substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God, the certainty of faith, Christian truimph(alism) and Jesus being 'altogether lovely.' Apologies if occasionally us more enthusiastic types just want to jump up and down and punch the air and shout 'Our God is AmAzing, yeh!!!!!' - it must be terribly embarrassing for you.

Evangelical

Highs: They can find books of the bible (even quote great chunks of it) without resorting to the index. 
Lows: A bit wordy. You can feel like you have digested a lot of the same sort of food after 15 years of 35 minute sermons on the cross. Yes, yes, we all know Jesus died for our sins but what about mounting country-wide concerns about gross financial inequality/global warming/rubbish conceptual art/Britain's Got Talent?

Complications

The Charismatics
Can you actually get Charismatic Anglicans?
Two word answer: New+Wine.http://www.new-wine.org/

Highs: Personally I find the idea of a lot of Anglicans in a massive camp site getting over excited about their faith quite refreshing - though you may need to take a couple of paracetamol. Also they do have some good tunes, thanks to a bunch of young guys called mainly Tim and Matt and some really groovy minor 9th chords:

http://uk.search-results.com/web?l=dis&o=1921&q=Give+us+your+courage&atb=sysid%3D406%3Aappid%3D151%3Auid%3Dae467a4663bc1909%3Auc%3D1326739929%3Aq%3DGive+us+your+courage%3Asrc%3Dcrb%3Ao%3D1921

Lows: A lot of the tunes are too high for ordinary people to sing: it goes back to the incense thing - after a while you just get a sore throat.










The Emerging Church
This is a biggie and complicates
everything still further.

Take the UK's Faith/Justice/Arts festival, Greenbelt for instance. http://www.greenbelt.org.uk/festival/2012/

Where else would you find 1970s former charismatics rubbing alongside LGBT campaigner, Peter Tatchell; Franciscan priest, Richard Rohr; Chaplain to the House of Commons, Revd. Rose Hudson Wilkin and sacramental Fresh Expressions? (plus an awful lot of Anglican clerics going around incognito, eating vegetarian falafel pittas.)

The edges are blurring...I even went to an Anglo-Catholic Charismatic conference in Hertfordshire last year - Benediction of the blessed sacrament with people lying all over the floor, 'slain in the Spirit.' Loved it. Came back very confused.

Single issues such as poverty and hunger unite those from differing backgrounds under yet another label - radical - and get you into trouble with those who want to keep labels a bit more well defined. So contrast/compare Sara Miles, liberal Episcopalian and radical author of Take This Bread (Random House, 2007) and Shane Claiborne, 'evangelical' founder of The Simple Way...

http://www.thesimpleway.org/shane/

All of which is to say that eating just the pink liquorice all sorts, or just the black ones, or sticking rigidly to the stripy ones, can be a bit boring (OR sensibly safe - after all you know you like those ones, you've always liked those ones and you know where you stand with those ones...)

And is variety always a good thing? I'm a big fan of a well organised supermarket but sometimes I get bamboozled by all the choice.

Have you ever felt the need to vary your diet/restrict it a bit more for simplicity? Does anyone out there want to ditch labels and get on with just serving one another in Christ? Or is that hopelessly naive, even dangerous to the true expression of the gospel/Church undivided?

Over to you.