There aren't many voices today that are willing to
acknowledge the profound shift that took place within the Christian Right over
the past generation. The emphasis of their movement used to focus on character
and integrity in political leadership. This was a major focus in their criticism
of Bill Clinton. He was an immoral man and unfit for office. The draft-dodging,
pot-smoking, ex-hippie philanderer with a feminist wife had marred the dignity
of the office.
And yet as politics took an especially nasty turn in the
1990's under the leadership of men like Newt Gingrich, the movement lost focus
and started to pursue raw power. Character no longer mattered. Truth no longer
mattered. The end justified the means. I'm not trying to paint a rosy picture
of what had been going on in Christian-Right and Evangelical circles prior to
this time or since the movement's rise in the late 1940's. It was ugly then and
took an uglier turn in the 1970's when they were able to consolidate their
movement and in light of the disappointing Carter administration, focus their
political aspirations within the Republican Party and at that time on Ronald
Reagan. Already the 'character' argument was slipping as indeed the divorcee Reagan
(with his astrologically fixated wife) was not what they pretended him to be.
But something happened during the Obama period. A frenzy took
over and there was a shift in American politics in general. Right-leaning libertarian
voices took over and there was a serious uptick in the culture of autonomy and
with it the guns and militia-mentality. This had happened before under Clinton
but it was renewed under Obama and given an extra boost. I think there are
reasons for this but things have also reached a point that's a hard to have
honest discussion about these things any more.
Previously respected lines in the realm of civility were
crossed and then 2016 happened. The brewing cauldron of political frustration
and radicalism was combined with other factors like the new post-2008 economy,
the Rust Belt and working class sectors reaching a breaking point,
libertarianism, tribalism and the effects of smartphone and social media
culture. And I'm not talking about some Russian plot but rather the type, tone
and tempo of information. Rumors, Facebook banners, edited videos and in
general a dumbing down of the population all played their part and continue to
produce disastrous results.
By 2016 the Democrats had abandoned the working class and the
largely defunct labor-union base it once possessed and had embraced identity
politics and both Wall Street and the security state with renewed vigour. And
yet they erred in their judgment as there was still a large contingent of
pro-labor, pro-New Deal and Great Society people that had once stood solidly in
their camp. Many of them remained more or less traditional (or at least
mainstream) in their social outlook and tended to focus more on economic issues.
A lot of these people felt betrayed and many had never embraced the politics of
identity and as such felt the Democratic Party was no longer their home. They (in
a manner reminiscent of the Reagan Democrats) quickly gravitated toward the
populist Trump who seemed an outsider, who gave voice to their anger and made
promises to them concerning the economy. A frustration with a seemingly
inexplicable foreign policy and in some cases a general ignorance regarding the
growing complexities of government, the culture and a globalist world had also aggravated
them and Trump promised a new era.
Instead of backing a potential omnibus candidate like (the admittedly
less than inspirational) Jim Webb or putting forward a figure like Dick
Gephardt, Wesley Clark or someone from the old conservative wing of the
Democratic Party, they attempted to crown Hillary Clinton who many had hated
since the 1990's and had by 2016 become a deeply entrenched representative of
the patronising Establishment. Obviously the plan backfired even though in many
respects Clinton represents the Right-wing of her party. That said, her
connections to Wall Street and her bellicosity which had been on display during
her tenure in the Senate and while Secretary of State generated some angst
among those who had grown frustrated with endless wars, globalism and
entanglements related to the perception that America had become some kind of
humanitarian policeman to the world.
But Evangelicals were in a crisis. Trump was exactly the sort
of person they previously had opposed. His character was rotten. He was
corrupt, sleazy, deeply immoral, unprincipled, cunning rather than intelligent
and yet also a sociopath and something of a child, if not just plain mentally
unstable. A vile person, it was hard for those who had retained the original
principles of the movement to even consider endorsing or allying with such a
man.
He couldn't even play the Christian game right and it took
the Faust's of the movement, men like Falwell Jr. and Franklin Graham to give
him cover and sufficiently redefine the basics of the faith in order to
accommodate his blatant hostility to even a pretense of evangelical repentance.
Lame sound-byte mantras like 'We're electing a president not a pastor' took
hold.
Clearly the movement had changed. Socially relevant-minded Evangelicals
tend to follow the culture and the shift in ethos had affected their churches.
The nastiness, consumerism and libertarian attitude had come to dominate and
suddenly the voices within the movement that were resistant to Trump were on
the defensive. The new generation had changed both its goals and values and the
older ideals (as flawed as they might have been) were quickly fading away.
Mohler has long been a prominent figure on the Evangelical
Right. A nationalist-patriot, a militarist and warmonger, a despiser of any
nation that dares to resist American power or the 'charms' and 'values' of its
culture, he promotes the capitalist system and is an apologist for the American
Empire. His morality is a syncretism of American values and poorly constructed
theological ideals. He has embraced the myths of America and its Classical
Liberal foundations and integrated them into his theology.
And yet, I had a modicum of respect for him and his one-time protégé
Russell Moore when they dared to speak out and oppose Trump even in the face of
withering criticism from the likes of Franklin Graham who has taken his
father's aberrant Evangelicalism and wed it to a heretical form of Trumpism.
Mohler and Moore, while not to be commended for what they stood for but they at
least had the integrity to realise that supporting Trump was to abandon what
the movement had been all about. It was a Rubicon that was being crossed.
And yet just four years later, Mohler has jumped ship, sold
out and joined the Trump bandwagon.
I am not completely convinced that his shift in the 1980's on
women's ordination is necessarily an indicator of his character. He may indeed
have undergone a genuine shift in thinking, perhaps facilitated by a study of
the New Testament. Maybe. But at the same time, he does seem to be first and
foremost a political creature.
I have often been astounded at the ignorance on display in
his commentaries and my astonishment is only surpassed when I came to realise
(to my dismay) just how popular he is and how many rely on his daily 'Briefing'
for guidance when considering the news. This makes me shake my head if not tremble
because having listened to and read many of his commentaries, articles and
interviews, I find that Mohler is a poor student of history, politics and his
cultural assessments are often misguided if not guilty of completely missing
the point. I consider him a sub-par exegete and theologian, points I have
pursued elsewhere. It would seem that above all his main skill, his gift if one
wants to call it that, is in terms of bureaucracy and marketing – advocating,
organising and selling the message of the Evangelical Right. He is a cunning
bureaucrat, able to navigate institutional waters and has been able to build a
successful 'brand'. Now, whether these are attributes to be praised, I leave to
the reader to decide.
Mohler it seems was a rising star in the Southern Baptist
Convention (SBC) and at some point got 'tapped' and marked for advancement.
Tasked with re-taking Southern Seminary for the conservatives, he succeeded and
fulfilled his mission purging the liberals from the school and re-casting its
image. Again, it was in the realms of bureaucracy and marketing that he
displayed his skills. And apparently he's done well for himself. I've spent
some time investigating the fortunes of many Evangelical leaders and Mohler has
always been a shut door. Unlike corrupt multi-millionaires Graham and
MacArthur, I cannot even get a hint of what kind of money Mohler makes or what
kind of fortune he has amassed. All I can say is, if that's what he was after
he probably would have excelled in the business world. I'm sorry to report
(contrary to many Christian leaders) I don't believe those skills translate
into any kind of valid use for Christian ministry.
His career has been fairly impressive. I'm not sure the
career approach is something to be lauded in Christian terms, but Mohler's has
been by all Evangelical measures 'successful'. He's made it into the mainstream
news and is considered one of the leaders or spokesmen for conservative Evangelicalism.
I remember really starting to pay attention to him back in 2003 when he was on
NPR's Fresh Air and speaking on the issue of Iraq. I recall arguing with a
friend who had thought he had done a masterful job at defending the insertion
of missionaries into the country in the wake of the US invasion. I warned
against the missionary insertion at that time and place because their work would
then be connected to the American invasion and occupation, something Mohler's
ill-informed worldview supported. Well, of course it became a moot subject
because the country and eventually the region slipped into chaos, something I
argued would happen back in 2002 when it was clear that Bush intended to invade
and on utterly false pretenses at that.
It seems plain enough that Mohler is aiming for the top spot
in the SBC. It will be the crowning feather in his cap, the Super-bowl ring
that has yet eluded him. The irony is that while he and Moore were as
Right-wing as you could get back in the early 2000's, the whole Republican
movement has shifted to the Right and has left them behind. Moore has shifted
somewhat, probably more toward a Centrist position (both politically and even
theologically) and as a consequence has earned many enemies. I remember being
somewhat disgusted when he took over from Richard Land as the SBC's chief
lobbyist. I honestly struggle to say anything nice about Land, a corrupt and
frankly morally repugnant person, a servant of American power and its system
rather than the Kingdom of God. I do not miss hearing his voice on the news.
Anyway, Moore took over the ERLC in 2013 and it would seem was justifiably shaken
by not only the Evangelical reaction to Obama but the shift to the hard Right
and the rise of Trump.
As I've written in other posts, Mohler has dwelled on the leftward
trajectory of the DNC while he has chosen to ignore the radical shift to the right
within the GOP. The most poignant examples are Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan.
Cantor rode the Tea Party wave into the House Majority Leader position and with
Ryan became a thorn in the side of Speaker John Boehner who by 2010 was already
being reckoned a moderate if not a closet or RINO liberal. But by 2014, the
politics of the GOP had shifted so far to the Right that Cantor was no longer
in step and famously lost in the Virginia primary.
Ryan who like Cantor had been in the House for about a decade
rose in popularity during the Tea Party wave. In 2012 Mitt Romney seeking the
hard-Right support he could not get, chose Ryan as his running mate. By 2015
Boehner had given up and resigned and his Speaker position was filled by Ryan.
It was by most accounts a meteoric rise. And yet by the 2018 mid-terms under
Trump, Ryan too was done. The party's shift to the Right had left him behind
and he stepped down in utter defeat.
These are but two examples of the shift within the Republican
Party and in its values but you wouldn't know it from Mohler.
And now he's decided to climb aboard the train. One cannot
help but wonder if his shift regarding Trump is in light of his quest for the
SBC presidency. He's read the changing winds and Trumpism in all its vileness
reigns supreme even within the SBC. And so if he wants the job he has to change
his tune. So much for character and moral leadership. So much for integrity and
standing for principles. Paris is worth a mass it would seem – the end
justifies the means.
It's ironic though that as Mohler and his team have climbed
through the ranks, the SBC and the GOP have shifted and now as a result Mohler,
Moore and others are shifting too and not all in the same direction. They reach
for the stars but at the last moment, their towers crumble, the clouds shift
and the stars elude them it would seem. Who would have ever though there would
be people running around on Mohler's right calling him and Moore 'Marxists' and
'Leftists'. It's absurd but it tells a story – but if Mohler tells the story (assuming
he understands it) it would be his undoing.
And so now Mohler's Christian Worldview aligns him with a
monster, a person who is so grossly un-Christian that's it's hard to fathom, a
serial adulterer and liar, a man who increasingly seems to be insane, who is
happy for people to die, for riots to break out on the streets as long as he
can get his way. He's more than willing to break the nation apart, smash its
political foundations in order to retain power and enrich himself and hear the
praises of his followers. While some people are seriously starting to talk
about the 25th Amendment, Mohler is signing on and joining the Trump
bandwagon. Because the Democrats are so evil and Trump keeps throwing bones to
the Evangelicals, they are his dogs.
All I can say is 'wow'.
The Democrats are evil but so are the Republicans. I'm
astonished that Mohler's 'Christian Worldview' traps him into the political
binary. He lets the fallen and deformed US political system determine his
choices and shape and compel his actions. Rather than expose the system as a
big lie, something rooted in evil and thus something to be rejected, something that
we as Christians should avoid any hint of ratification by participating in it,
he embraces the sacralist imperative to seek power and transform culture. And
so he plays the game and constructs the 'Biblical' theology to support it and
misleads the masses to sign-on to his project and morally excoriates them if
they don't. It would seem for some that 'Biblical worldview' is just a cover
for political machination and consequentialist ethics. This is ever the result
of sacralist worldview thinking. And of course the world marches on and in
every case it's the Church that ends up being transformed. The world isn't
sacralised but the Church is most certainly secularised in its values, ethics
and ultimately its theology. Mohler is contributing to this process. This is
his real legacy.
And the RNS writer, sodomite egoist though he is – is most
correct. Mohler owes Bill Clinton a profound apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.