Are white evangelicals the biggest hypocrites?

[RFayette]

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

I'm having a hard time getting how one can read the Gospels and get 'tolerance' as a major teaching of Christ. Even ignoring my Christian preconceptions, Jesus of Nazareth can be quite prickly at times.

Indeed.  I don't get how someone can read Luke 12 & 14 and Matthew 5 and somehow envision Jesus as the nice hippie founding a religion of pure tolerance and acceptance only to be spoiled by mean ol' Paul. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/wikileaks-podesta-left-wing-activist-plot-catholic-spring/

This, coupled with a packed Supreme Court, could force these changes.

Think about it; they want to infiltrate and manipulate religions that oppose them that they don't believe in. 

John Podesta is neither a preacher, nor a troll.  Think about that as well.

Is that really the best you can do? Private musings between people aren't the same as actual public policy advocated by anyone - you know that Trump's people, Obama's people, Bush's people, etc., had all kinds of personal conversations that have no bearing on anything that was actually done.

Lots of liberal Catholics dream of a day when the church stops being so uptight, especially on issues like contraception, where over 90% of Catholics ignore church "teachings." There was nothing unusual about these scary emailz.

I also think it's hilarious how all these super-right-wing evangelicals, who normally don't even believe Catholics are Christian or can go to Heaven, suddenly care so much about us when they can score a political point or two.

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

Well, they can be irrationally scared all they want - they've been deceived by unscrupulous pastors and conmen who want their money. But they got through the Obama years just fine and they'll get through anyone else's.

The Left has no need to force members of the Religious Right to be more tolerant of gays or whatever - it will happen naturally on its own. 50 years ago, the Religious Right was terrified that the big bad gubmit was gonna force them to accept the equality of blacks. All those churches scaremongered and whined, and in the end, the next generation of parishioners was more than willing to accept black equality all on their own. Similarly, within a few decades all these anti-gay churches will have switched over to pro-gay on their own as newer generations take over leadership roles.

If you don't agree with Roman Catholicism, don't be a Catholic.  No one's forcing you.  

If you don't want to be an Evangelical, you don't have to be one.  Jesus doesn't twist arms.  Christianity is proselytizing, but not Jihadist.

A church that accepts homosexuality as an acceptable behavior is a church that has abandoned Scripture as being Authoritative.  It's just another book, no more an authority than The Cat In The Hat.  That's fine, too; millions of Americans believe just that.  But if you do believe that, don't come at me with a Bible and tell me I'm wrong, because I'll tell you that your argument is rubbish because you don't believe Scripture to be authoritative, and you're probably wrongly dividing the Word.  When it comes to the authority of Scripture, I'm going to call folks when they try to have it both ways.

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

You and I have very, very different ideas about what "being a Christian" means.  And those differences have, as I see it, eternal consequences.

This idea that Jesus was a "wonderful teacher" and being a Christian means "following his teachings" is nonsense when you consider who Christ, Himself said he was.  Christ said He was the Son of God, and the Only Way to the Father.  He said He was a Person of the Godhead.  ("If you have seen Me, you have seen The Father.")  He called Peter blessed for affirming this.  ("You are the Christ; the Son of the Living God.")  He said that only through faith in His Death and Resurrection can one achieve eternal life.  "I am the Resurrection and the Life."  "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."  "No man cometh unto the Father but by Me."

If someone on a street corner were claiming these virtues, we would consider him insane.  If he were one of our family members, we would initiate commitment proceedings.  If we saw folks following him, dedicating their lives to him, giving up all for him, we would view him as a liar and a con man; the red avatars here would consider Donald Trump an improvement over him.  Folks would view him as a fraud bigger than Robert Tilton and Reverend Ike; indeed, he'd be viewed by many as almost Mansonesque.

"Being a Christian" is not a Biblical term.  The Bible is about how man can be reconciled to God and have eternal life, and only one Way is laid out.  It is by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  This requires more than affirming "Jesus's Teachings"; it means belief in Jesus being who He said he is.  If the part of the Bible you don't believe is the part about Jesus's death and resurrection, that's a BIG deal.  "Being a Christian" involves believing that Jesus is who He says he is in Scripture. 

[bouncycorn]

I believe that there exists great hypocracy on all `sides. Proclaiming either is a bigger hypocrite is hypocritical in itself and they'd argue the same about you.

[RFayette]

The problem with calling Jesus a "good teacher" but not actually divine is that it would make Jesus look like a lunatic or a malicious liar based on the things he said.

What kind of "good teacher" would say things like found in Luke 14:26-33, for example?  In light of those passages, if I didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, I'd consider him an absolute lunatic, hardly worthy of any praise or commendation.  In fact, if Jesus were not the son of God, he would be in terms of number deceived, the greatest fraudster ever to live:  how is that in any way respectable?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Reminds me of a C. S. Lewis quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[NOVA Green]

Just popped in to see what was going on in the thread, and was extremely and pleasantly surprised to see a nice civil conversation, including elements from scripture, and varying interpretations of religious dogma from different perspectives....

Actually pretty awesome for Atlas having a conversation of this nature, without trolling from various political perspectives...

The very concept of hypocrisy and politics almost seems to be something that has been long embedded in the history of Democracy, going back several thousand years ago to the ancient Greeks.

White evangelicals are no exception to this pattern in Modern Day American politics...

What is different today about the White Evangelical movement today, is less to do with traditional ideas of spreading the faith (proselytizing) than it is about *political power*

Using the instruments of government to dictate onto others one own's religious belief structures as an attempt of forcible conversion....

Tell me, my evangelical friends on the Forum, as to where in your various doctrines does your faith allow for the creation of a religious dictatorship, based upon your own belief structures, in a country that was founded on the very concept of religious freedom for those fleeing the "Old Country"?

This might be hard to hear, but the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT subscribe to the Theocracy that y'all want to impose on the rest of us....

Biggest hypocrites--- No. 
Biggest opponents of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights---- Quite possibly as a cohesive voting block and attempting to take control of the Government to ram your religious belief structure down the throats of 75% of Americans....

Lest anyone think that I am a hater, my Father, Step-Mother, and younger Brother and Sister are all White Evangelical Christians and at least 3/4 do not believe in using the power of the State to enforce religious conformity....

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I know very few people who want to impose their beliefs on others.  Theonomists are a tiny minority among Evangelicals and I've only met a few in my life.  This is despite the fact that I attended one of the most conservative churches in the area (I was one of the only people at my church to celebrate Halloween, for instance).

For what its worth, the Southern Baptist Convention has recently come out strongly in favor of religious freedom for Muslims.

[NOVA Green]

I know very few people who want to impose their beliefs on others.  Theonomists are a tiny minority among Evangelicals and I've only met a few in my life.  This is despite the fact that I attended one of the most conservative churches in the area (I was one of the only people at my church to celebrate Halloween, for instance).

For what its worth, the Southern Baptist Convention has recently come out strongly in favor of religious freedom for Muslims.

Thank You!!!

I am hopeful that the younger generation does not subscribe to some of the moral failings of the older...  My younger brother and sister both still consider themselves evangelicals, but for them their Christian identity is personal and more about general moral values and conduct than political (They are both Democrats, even my brother currently living in Alabama), my Step-Mother is an amazing woman who grew up in a large family in rural Wyoming, who has devoted much of the past six years doing missionary work in former republics of the Soviet Union (More about "works" although we spent a follow-up call for an hour so she could clarify that it was not "works" in a Catholic sense, but motivated from her core religious values---- I love my step mother.... )

When I was in college back in the early '90s, I met a Gay activist who was Southern Baptist attending a neighboring college in the Midwest, and he told me in extensive detail about how the times they were a changing even within his particular denomination....

It honestly doesn't surprise me that Southern Baptists have come to that conclusion (Support for the religious rights of Muslim Americans), along with many other Protestant communities from non evangelical backgrounds, as well as other historically repressed religious minorities (Mormons, Catholics, and Jews), of whom my wife fits into the Catholic category and my older sister and her family into the latter category....

That being said, what does it mean when White evangelicals try to enforce and promote laws that require the ten commandments to be posted in public schools, crosses to be displayed in public buildings throughout the land?

Separation of Church and State is the foundation of our Nation, where in the "Old Country" of Europe, one's religion was frequently met not just with persecution, but with the death sentence potentially, depending upon the whims of the various Monarchs of the times.... So we get a Catholic Colony in Rhode Island & Maryland, Puritans in Massachusetts, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and a mixture of English and Scots-Irish in some of the Southern states (Closer to the theological position of the Crown)....

So to wrap back on topic to the OP's question---- I do not consider "White" evangelicals to be the biggest hypocrites...  There are many that vote for political candidates with whom they disagree with on both personal, moral, as well as a wide range of political positions....

One could post a better question as to why White evangelicals voted for Donald Trump, considering his well published personal moral failings, without stereotyping an entire community that vote for multiple reasons....

Why did Jimmy Carter win the White evangelical vote in '76?

Gerald Ford was a decent man with no major personal failings.....

[DC Al Fine]

It is not hypocritical whatsoever and perfectly ideologically consistent for someone to be a faithful Christian, simply not believe the entire Bible to be the literal word of God and do what they think - based on the broader, more important teachings of Christ - God's will actually is RE: tolerance.  They're not worse Christians than you are.

The problem with calling Jesus a "good teacher" but not actually divine is that it would make Jesus look like a lunatic or a malicious liar based on the things he said.

What kind of "good teacher" would say things like found in Luke 14:26-33, for example?  In light of those passages, if I didn't believe Jesus was the son of God, I'd consider him an absolute lunatic, hardly worthy of any praise or commendation.  In fact, if Jesus were not the son of God, he would be in terms of number deceived, the greatest fraudster ever to live:  how is that in any way respectable?

Good point. I want to give RINOTom a more detailed explanation of this than I already. Let's ignore the homosexuality issue and look at why Evangelicals get so upset at liberal Christianity (meaning liberal theology, not liberal politics) in general.

The example RINOTom mentioned is quite common. People want to get to stick to what Jesus said, ignoring Paul and the OT. There are two problems with this:

1) Such claims often seem to be coming from ignorance and are used as a club on more conservative Christians. One often gets the impression that such folks haven't read the Gospels very closely. Jesus Christ makes radical claims and can be quite harsh at times.

2) It ignores all historical context. Jesus himself upholds the Old Testament in Matthew 5, so without Paul, the religion ought to less tolerant and more restrictive, as Jewish Christianity indeed was. As for Paul, he was being quoted authoritatively by contemporaries of the Apostles like Clement and Polycarp.

Anti-Paulines have to come up with a reason why John's best buddy Polycarp is citing anti-homosexual Romans or anti-women's ordination 1 Timothy. Such explanations tend to be quasi-Gnostic or restorationist, descending into rank heresy. They often end up saying that John and Peter and Clement and Polycarp are wrong, but modern people sitting two thousand years and a language barrier away are right about what Jesus was really getting at. Some even go so far as to say there is new revelation from the Holy Spirit.

That's not to say that you or people talking like this about Jesus are all gnostic heretics, most people talking the way you mentioned aren't thinking about the problems with chucking out Paul. The far more likely explanation in my view, is that they are trying to square 21st century ideas that clash with the New Testament, and are forced to lose Paul to do so. That is the big problem for Evangelicals.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I know very few people who want to impose their beliefs on others.  Theonomists are a tiny minority among Evangelicals and I've only met a few in my life.  This is despite the fact that I attended one of the most conservative churches in the area (I was one of the only people at my church to celebrate Halloween, for instance).

For what its worth, the Southern Baptist Convention has recently come out strongly in favor of religious freedom for Muslims.

Thank You!!!

I am hopeful that the younger generation does not subscribe to some of the moral failings of the older...  My younger brother and sister both still consider themselves evangelicals, but for them their Christian identity is personal and more about general moral values and conduct than political (They are both Democrats, even my brother currently living in Alabama), my Step-Mother is an amazing woman who grew up in a large family in rural Wyoming, who has devoted much of the past six years doing missionary work in former republics of the Soviet Union (More about "works" although we spent a follow-up call for an hour so she could clarify that it was not "works" in a Catholic sense, but motivated from her core religious values---- I love my step mother.... )

When I was in college back in the early '90s, I met a Gay activist who was Southern Baptist attending a neighboring college in the Midwest, and he told me in extensive detail about how the times they were a changing even within his particular denomination....

It honestly doesn't surprise me that Southern Baptists have come to that conclusion (Support for the religious rights of Muslim Americans), along with many other Protestant communities from non evangelical backgrounds, as well as other historically repressed religious minorities (Mormons, Catholics, and Jews), of whom my wife fits into the Catholic category and my older sister and her family into the latter category....

Here is an article about the SBC and religious freedom.

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/15/southern-baptists-debate-religious-liberty-for-muslims/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's been a while since religion in public schools has been an issue.  The religious right is significantly weaker than it was even 10 years ago.  There isn't much of it left.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who didn't vote for Trump, but I think I have a few answers for you.

There are a large number of people that I call "cultural Evangelicals."  These are the "War on Christmas" types who freak out over "Happy Holidays" but are completely unaware of persecution of Christians in places like China.  These people see America and Christianity as completely intertwined.  They are the type of Evangelicals who supported Trump in the primaries.  They think that America is a Christian country and that Muslims are a threat to their freedom.  They go to church because it's part of their cultural upbringing.  They are heavily concentrated in the South.  For instance, whatever Evangelical presence there is in Oregon probably has very few of these.  This also seems to be a purely American phenomenon.

Then there are the rest of the Evangelicals.  They were appalled by Trump's words and actions and most did not vote for him in the primaries.  Many, like my immediate family and many of my friends, did not vote for him at all.  But others did.  They did so for multiple reasons:

1: It is deeply ingrained in white Evangelicals' minds to vote Republican.  They've been doing this for decades.  Whoever wins the Republican nomination will win the majority of the white Evangelical vote.

2: Religious freedom.  Many Evangelicals feared that a Democratic administration would eventually force churches to perform same-sex weddings.

3: SCOTUS.  Many Evangelicals vote Republican simply because of the Supreme Court.

As for Jimmy Carter, the religious right hadn't really become a major political force yet.

[impactreps]

I am an evangelical who didn't vote for Trump (a combination of his character and that he was grossly unqualified to be President), and almost all of the evangelicals I know (quite a few) voted for Trump because:

1. He was a businessman who would help the economy
2. Hillary was corrupt
3. DJT would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court
4. Obama was destroying America

They all had reservations about his character as well, but believed that crude comments he made in private ten years ago should have no bearing on the kind of President he would be. They usually admitted that Bill Clinton was a pretty good President even though he was a scoundrel, and actually committed adultery. So while they didn't think DJT was the best person, they thought he would be a vastly better President than Hillary.

BTW my grandmother, who is probably the most devoutly religious person I know, voted for Stein because she couldn't stomach either Clinton or Trump. (She had never heard of Stein and didn't know who she was or what she believed, but told me that she just liked the idea of voting for a woman. )

[Fuzzy Bear]

No Evangelical I know advocates a theocracy.  While a candidate proclaiming they are a Christian is a key qualification with most Evangelicals, it's not a do-all-end-all.  Most Evangelicals recognize and support religious freedom for Muslims in the same manner that they wish for themselves.

What Christians are rightly concerned about, and what so many liberals are in denial about, is how Muslims treat religious minorities when THEY are in the majority.  That's not a pretty picture around the world, and given that most of our Muslim immigrants come from those states that adhere to the most Jihadist strains of Islam, Evangelicals ARE rightly concerned about what would happen if, indeed, America became a majority Muslim nation.  There is no real religious freedom in the states from which most of our Muslim immigrants are coming from, and the refugees from these nations are NOT here seeking "religious freedom".  Sunni may persecute Shia in Saudi Arabia and Shia may persecute Sunni in Syria, but neither faction shows any evidence of accepting the idea of a pluralistic society with the kind of religious freedom most Americans subscribe to. 

This is an uncomfortable truth.  Is it good for America if our immigration policies lead to the day when 40% of our residents (with a majority in some states) honestly believe that it should be illegal for people to leave the Muslim faith?  Or that doing so should be punished by death?  Such beliefs go beyond mere religion; they go to an ideology that subscribes to active repression of the liberties that the Bill of Rights promises and our government is supposed to protect.

[pbrower2a]

I find it hard to believe that evangelicals can vote for someone so amoral as Donald Trump. He has divorced and remarried -- a woman much younger than he. He has a child out of wedlock and has paid for an abortion. He has stiffed subcontractors (Thou shalt not steal!)

Or do evangelicals have boundless ability to expect better of someone severely failed?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I find it hard to believe that evangelicals can vote for someone so amoral as Donald Trump. He has divorced and remarried -- a woman much younger than he. He has a child out of wedlock and has paid for an abortion. He has stiffed subcontractors (Thou shalt not steal!)

Or do evangelicals have boundless ability to expect better of someone severely failed?

Rush Limbaugh is not a believer, and he is not a particularly moral man, but he supports initiatives most Evangelicals support in terms of public policy.  

Bernie Sanders is highly moral, but he opposes most of the initiatives most Evangelicals support in terms of public policy.

It does not take a moral giant to appoint a Supreme Court Justice who will not expand abortion rights or encroachments on religious liberties.  I wish Trump's personal life were more conformed to the character of Christ, and pray that it will be over time.  But his Spiritual immaturity does not at all preclude his being an effective President in terms of the initiatives important to Evangelical Christians.  That's what you're really objecting to; the idea that Trump may get stuff done that you don't agree with.

[DC Al Fine]

I don't think the left comprehends whatsoever the level of fear religious conservatives have of them in power. They can argue the Democrat establishment would never do the things their supporters want to do to religious conservatives, but few religious conservatives are going to believe that. Why? Because the political landscape changes and the left's social positions change with it. If the left is correct that we are on some arc of social progress, the they're of course going to be against the "next step" right up until they're for it. It's like an entire ideology built around perpetually moving the goal posts.

To add to TJ's point, American religious conservatives have the (dis?)advantage of existing in an Overton window ~5-15 years behind the rest of the West. They can see plausible ways the left will shift simply by looking at what their counterparts in Canada, the UK and continental Europe are facing.