Claiming the mantle of Christ in politics. Addressing politicians in desperate times, part 2.
This series was kicked off on a companion blog, and followed up upon in another one that has a more limited focus. That's why we're posting this one here. I.e., we acknowledge that questions that are important to hunters, fishermen, campers, etc., may not be to the sincerely religious.*
I fear, gentle reader, that this will have a rather long winded introduction, but there's no real way to avoid that.
More than any other era in my lifetime, religion is in the public sphere. In Wyoming, the least religious state in the country, decades went by in which politicians never openly stated anything about their faith. I knew very sincere Catholic politicians who never mentioned that in a race, or while in office.1 The same is true of two deeply Mormon politicians I know. If you knew them, you knew that they were Mormons, but they never mentioned it even once in their campaigns.
The same was true of Congressional candidates. There were longserving Congressmen from Wyoming whom I could not tell you anything about their religions. I assume that they were Christians, but it's just an assumption. I'm sure I could look it up, but it's not something you automatically knew.
Well, those days are over, and they're over because radical Calvinists of the New Apostolic Reformation are waging a holy war on American culture, and by extension, effectively on other faiths, including the main of the Christian faith. They're franky fairly open about it.
As part of this, a lot of politicians now wrap themselves in the mantle or religion, claiming Christ and Christianity, and directly interjecting questions of faith and morals into their politics. Prime examples today are people like Mike Johnson, who is some sort of Evangelical Christian and who has the Christian Nationalist Pinetree Flag outside of his office.2 The election of Donald Trump brought to the forefront Christian Nationalist and National Conservatives, movements that were around before Trump but who see Trump as their once in a millenium opportunity.
In that group, moreover, there are two distinct camps. One one hand, you have National Conservatives, a movement defined by people like Patrick Dineen and Rod Dreher and who are often Apostolic Christians looking back basically to the 19th Century. They distrust democracy entirely, and therefore espouse a sort of democracy that can only exist within cultural guiderails. Adherents to their views who are in the Administration or who have close influences on it are J. D. Vance and Kevin Roberts.3
These people are influential, but not as much as the second group.
The second group are radical Evangelicals who are often part of the New Apostolic Reformation. They really only barely tolerate Apostolic Christians and some of them, who are pretty ignorant as a rule on Church history and the early history of the Church, do not regard Apostolic Christians, particularly Catholics, as Christians at all. The standard bearer for people of this mindset was Charlie Kirk, although he seemed to have been evolving steadily towards Apostolic Christianity. Paula White, whom most Apostolic Christians and Mainline Protestants would fine to be a little weird, is the "faith advisor" from this camp who is very close to the Trump Administration. Franklin Graham seems to be in this circle as well.4
The NAR people believe in a theology in which the United States sort of has a status roughly analogous to Israel in the Old Testament. That is, they believe the US has a Devine mission. They're serious about it, and they see the country as a Calvinist country, which is distinctly different from seeing it as a Christian country. The U.S. is definitely a Protestant Country, even though many Americans don't' realize that, and Puritanism still influences it heavily. Teh NAR people would bring Puritanism roaring back.
Christianity has had splits and different views right from the onset. There were early heracies, of course, but there were also local expressions of Catholicism that gave rise to different rights. World events separated the churches from each other, and some of the divisions meant that distant branches of the Church spent long periods in isolation from other Christians. I note that to counter what is so often generally supposed, that being that Christianity was completely uniform at first. That was never true. Christians could certainly recognize each other, and even when long separated Churches came back into exposure with the main they often instantly recognized that they were in contact with other Apostolic Christians, but there were local different. Such differences gave rise to the Great Schism and then, more radically, to the Reformation.
I don't note all of this to try to set out a history of the Church, but to further note here a set of additional divides.
The Catholic Church has divides between orthodox, traditional, radically traditional, and liberal, with the latter camp really falling rapidly away. We won't deal much with the liberal here, as its basically a Baby Boom thing and a product of a misunderstanding of Vatican II. Over time, orthodox thinking has really returned to the Church, to the relief of almost all, and presently orthodoxy is the mainstream of the Catholic demographic, with liberalism sort of an old Priest and old Bishop hold out sort of thing. Orthodox Catholics take their Faith seriously, and look inward at the Church, rather than expect all that much of society as rule. Trads take that one step further, reincorporating some of the things that disappeared with the "spirt of Vatican II". Rad Trads go even further than that, with hostility towards the modern Church.
Politically, sincere Catholics are hard to peg down. Even the Trump administration gives us a glimpse of that. I doubt that Rubio joins Vance for Mass, even though they both go each Sunday and Holy Days. Anyhow, Catholics that aren't protestantized, and many are protestantized, tend towards the middle of things politically, being very conservative on most social issues involving life or gender, but potentially all over the map on other issues, save for one thing. They can't be "America First" or any nation first on anything. They hold Christ first and everything else second, some things a distant second. There's no such thing, for educated Catholics, as an "American church". In that, they hold the same view as St. Thomas More as expressed in his last words before his martyrdom:
I die the king's good servant, but God's first.
St. Thomas More before his execution on July 6, 1535.
The Orthodox are much the same, save for the fact that there really aren't "liberal" Orthodox, although there certainly are unobservant ones due to a loose understanding of mortal sin in Orthodoxy. The interesting thing here is that the Orthodox, who are very traditional on things, have been experiencing an unanticipated influx into their ranks which is changing the Orthodox Churches.
For decades, Orthodox Churches were ethnic in a way that Catholic Churches could not be. Now, many people will note that somebody was "Polish Catholic" or "Irish Catholic", and indeed that meant and means something. But at the time at which such phrases meant the most, it was also the case that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church said its Masses in Latin, and that meant that the Church was always very much International in nature. Any Catholic Church anywhere, no matter how ethnic its parishioners may have been, always had members who were converts or members of other ethnicities, in the United States as well as elsewhere, and CAtholics were always conscience of that. Orthodox Churches, however, were often extremely ethnic.
The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have, however, seen quite the influx of others in recent decades. In the case of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, the influx started off with Trad Catholics who were seeking a traditional service. That may have continued on, but frankly at the present time the entire Latin Rite is much more traditional than it was even fifteen years ago. Put another way, if you are seeking the traditional in the Latin Rite, it's not very hard to find it.5.
But some Protestants who are fleeing their mainline Protestant Churches as those churches decline, and moreover as they've embraced liberalism, can't bring themselves to go all the way across the Tiber. Many, many do, but some do not. Some of those swim the metaphorical Bosphorus instead.
As they've done that they've brought a much needed widening to the Orthodox Churches, although not always in a way that ethnic parishioners have always welcomed. Churches that were Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox have started to become American Orthodox, both figurately and early literally.
Holy Apostles Orthodox Christian Church, Cheyenne Wyoming.
In Protestantism, we see some similar things going on.
In the Mainline Protestant Churches we've seen some that have gravitated towards liberalism, and empty pews. Usually in the same denomination there's a pull away back toward their Catholic origin. One of the most Catholic wedding homilies I've ever heard, for example, was delivered by a Lutheran pastor. It was blisteringly orthodox. Entire groups of the Anglican Communion had waded into the middle of the Tiber and waded there.
As that has happened, liberal branches of Mainline Protestant Churches have simply started to die. Indeed, the entire Protestant Reformation is pretty clearly in its death throes. The Catholic Church in much of the ground captured by rebels of the Reformation is gaining ground, including in the United States and United Kingdom. In the same territory, the churches of the Reformation are dying away.
As that happens, however, the radical Reformation churches, those that were the reformation of the Reformation, have held on in their own unique ways. In some instances, they've done so through having a very lightweight adherence to Christ's message. Entire branches of Protestantism don't take seriously much of Christ's message on multiple things, the sanctity of marriage, and its enduring nature, in particular. Most Protestant churches have come around to being completely comfortable with divorce and remarriage, and even multiple mirages, as well as birth control and living together outside of marriage.
While that's happened, on the far political right we now have a revival of hardcore Calvinism, the sort of Calvinism that's really intolerant of anything else. And that's the branch of Protestantism that has the most influence on the Second Trump administration. It's basically at war with American culture.
A Pastor's Warning: We're Not in a Civil War, But a Christian Nationalist Holy War—And They Must Not Win.
What those who are religious, or who take religion seriously must do, or even those who simply take the topic seriously must do, is to ask candidates a series of questions, or ask yourself a series. We'll start off, after this very long introduction, with those.
1. Does a candidate who clothes himself in the mantle of religion, in any fashion, live according to the tenants of the religion?
We are seeing a lot of claims by politicians now days that they are religious, or that perhaps some other candidate is. But what's the evidence for this?
The prime example is frankly Donald Trump. Claims that he is a Godly man are simply absurd. The claims that he's some sort of Cyrus the Great are less absurd, but still absurd. He's a genuinely bad man.
You really can't practice serial polygamy and claim that you are some kind of adherent Christian. And while all things are possible with God, having extreme wealth and being focused on it likewise make a person quite unlikely to be any sort of sincere Christian.
I'd start in part with Trump here, not because Trump claims to be a sincere Christian, although he comes pretty close, but because of those who seek to wrap him in the mantle of Christianity. It's simply not credible, and people who assert that seriously shouldn't be taken seriously. In contrast, thsoe who take a more cynical view, that they're advancing some kind of Christianity through an irreligious man, are more credible.
It is not, we'd note, that we're encouraging people to be irreligious. Quite the contrary. But if a person makes being a "Christian" a banner in their campaign, what kind of Christianity do they espouse? The same would be true for any other religions. The new mayor of New York, for example, is a Muslim, but clearly of the branch of Islam, now rare in the Middle East, that was of the progressive tolerant variety.7
The long and the short of this is ,that if politician claim to be a devout member of "Fill In Church" here, but doesn't go, well, that says all you need to know about him.8
4. Do they adhere to the tenants of their religion?
This is a big one, and you are entitled to ask.
It's one thing for a person to say "I'm a ____________". But all religions have the concept of a greater entity. If a person claims, for example, to be a Muslim but slams down a fifth of Jim Beam every night, well. . .
That is, of course, a bad example. But to give more concrete ones Joe Biden was often cited as a Catholic, but supported the seas of blood that abortion results in, as well as the biological abomination of transgenderism. This might make more sense (well actually it wouldn't) if you did not claim to be part of a religion that condemns them, but if you do, it shows that you have weak moral character that you may betray for convenience.
Lest it seems like we are endorsing Republicans by default, Donald Trump, who claims sorme loose association with Christianity, is a moral sewer.
Vance has claimed Catholicism, but backs IVF, which the Church condemns.
But what about your local politician? They may be ramrod straight claiming that they are a member of _______________, but do they live their lives that way? If they claim a faith, you have the right to ask, and demand that they do. Indeed, part of the problem with modern politics is that politicians are allowed to claim a religion on a tribal, but not practice basis.
5. Have they changed religions?
Religious conversions can be sincere or insincere. In contemporary American conversions for convenience are less common than they once were, but they still exist.
Something to consider here is that conversion from no religion into a religion, and then practicing it, indicates sincerity. Also, conversion into a religion that carries they byproduct of contempt for conversion does as well.
For this reason, while I have lots of problems with J. D. Vance, I sincerely credit his conversion into Catholicism. This isn't something that you do lightly, and it isn't like just showing up at a service. To be a Catholic is to endure contempt.
I'll also note that as a Catholic, while I feel that joining a Protestant faith if you are a baptized Catholic endangers your soul, I'll credit sincerity with some who have done so. Mike Pence, who was a baptized Catholic is sich an example. While I feel that his faith journey has been deluded, and I hoep for his return, I believe he's sincere.
On the other hand, a conversion that was one of convenience shows a defect in moral character. Without naming names, I can cite one local politicians who had a Catholic education and marriage, and then became a Presbyterian when a marriage situation suited that. He's probably about as sincere Presbyterian as he was a Catholic, but that's the point. A person whose attachment to the existential is so thin has no attachment to anything that matters at all, as is exemplified by the person I mentioned, who went from middle of the road conservative, to conservative, to MAGA, all with a stern look as if he was paying any attention at all.
5. Why are they citing their religion?
If they are, why?
There's only two possibilities. Either they think it really matters, or they think it matters to you.
That's it.
If they think it matters to you, they're claiming a tribal affiliation, not a moral one, and that should be problematic.
6. Do they think that: 1) this is a Christian nation and 2) it should be a theocracy?
The answer matters.
This is a Christian nation. People who say otherwise are fooling themselves. More than that, this ia a Puritan nation, although that's dying before our eyes.9 Accepting one, without the other, is significant.
Truth be known, this country stopped being 100% Puritan about a week after the Plymouth Rock landing, but it's been a long haul. It wasn't until the Kennedy election that Catholic's really became part of the country. Things continue to evolve.
This being the case, the weltanchaung of the NAR is fundamentally adverse to American culture and, oddly enough, the American Civil Religion. We're not going back, and we're not going back as the NAR is fundamentally wrong.
We're headed in a new direction. That direction can be conservative, but the NAR doesn't reflectd Christian reality, or the message of Christ.
7. Does the candidate advocate or excuse bad things?
It's one thing to be irreligious and advocate a bad thing. It's another to be a Christian.
Invading countries and killing people outside of self dense if deeply immoral.
Killing people, including the unborn, is gravely wrong.
I'd argue avoiding the natural result of human intercourse is as well.
Theft, including of lands, is immoral
Avaracie is immoral.
Right makes might has been a proven failure since day one. Our current President seems to have adopted it. Does your candidate"
8. Does their embrace of religion make you 100% comfortable?
This would depend upon the faith, of course, but basically if you are sitting behind the candidate at Mass and wondering, 'how can he?", well, ask him?
Footnotes
*Although we would argue that if you are not out enjoying and experiencing God's creation in nature, in some fashion, you should be.
1. Highly successful sheep rancher and politician Patrick J. Sullivan, who was Irish born, and a Catholic in Natrona County, supposedly tried to keep his distance from being too publicly Catholic, although that would have been due to the outright hostility to Catholicism in the first half of the 20th Century. He served one year, more or less, as Wyoming's U.S. Senator upon the death of Francis E. Warren.
The unrelated Gov. Mike Sullivan is a devout Catholic who was ambassador to Ireland under Bill Clinton. While his Irish heritage was very well known, pretty much nothing was every said about it while he was in office.
2. Johnson provides an interesting example of what we're discussing here, in that he's from Louisiana. Louisianans will often sort of wrap themselves around a faux Cajun personality to outsiders, but there are really five cultures that are basically naive to the state, Cajun, Creole, Black Creole and Southern White. Johnson is Southern White. This is quite significant in that Cajuns are descendants of Acadians transported there and have a strong French culture, including within it Catholicism. Creole's and Black Creole's are a"mixed" ethnicity in Louisiana, descendants of Cajuns, Spanish colonist, and African slaves. They too have a culture that's heavily impacted by the French, through the Cajuns, but they are not Cajuns. They are also often Catholic. The third group, Deep South Whites, are descendants of English and Scottish colonist in the Southeast, and they're uniformly Protestant, and reflect the post Civil War shift from the Episcopal Church toward the Baptist Church and related Evangelical Christian faiths.
I've only known three Louisianans, and of them, only two fairly well. Two of them were Creole, and one of them was a native French speaker. One was a Cajun and could speak French, and interestingly was a Catholic with a French Jewish background.
As a total aside, these culture are really distinct and have distinct music and even distinct style of dancing.
3. Vance wrote the forward to Robert's book Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America. Vance and Roberts are both Catholic.
So, of course, is Marco Rubio, who is a fairly devout Catholic But he's not a National Conservative.
4. I find White to be a little weird, and I have questions about how Christian she really is, given her personal life. I can't stand Graham, and couldn't stand his father either, for reasons I really can't define.
I've been this way, I'll note, since I was a child. One are where I really differ from my father, who grew up without television of course, is that I, who did, basically will never turn a television on until the evening and I never watch TV during the day. Never. My father pretty much turned the TV on as soon as he was in the house. It was just sort of background noise, really. As there were only three television channels locally when I was a kid, that means he'd sometimes turn the TV on and there'd be some Billy Graham revival, and he'd just leave it on. I couldn't stand Billy Graham and I didn't like him being on, even though I probably was only ten years old or younger at the time.
5. Thirty years ago I probably could have counted the women I'd see at Mass wearing a mantilla with one hand and have fingers to spare. Now it's becoming common, and even with preteen girls. There have been restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, but most typical Catholic Masses now would rival any High Church service that Episcopalians might choose to hold.
6. She was raised a Baptist, but is intensely private about her religious beliefs.
7. The world's most oppressed religion, Judaism, seems uniquely exempt from this in some ways. Secular Jews get tarred with the same brush as highly religious ones, while on the flip side, at least in contemporary America, opposing somebody simply because they are Jewish remains intolerable. Having said that, the prejudices that have resurfaced under the Trump Administration now make this statement suspect, as openly hating Jews because heya re Jews has returned (openly hating Catholics because they are Catholic will not be far behind).
I'll also note that I've heard open contempt for the Mayor of New York, simply because he's Muslim. But then, at the same time, at least two members of Congress have received open contempt for the same thing, with one receiving contempt from Donald Trump seemingly because she's a black African.
8. I'll note that Mike Johnson, who at one time compared himself to a Biblical Patriarch, is on record as being too busy to alway attend church.
This is baloney. I've, to my regret, often worked seven days a week, but I make Mass. I'd gladly exchange my role with Mike's.
9. Wihtin a generation, for multiple reasons, this will be a Catholic country.
Prior editions:
