David Brooks and the Trumpite Schisms Within the Evangelical Movement

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/evangelicalism-division-renewal.html

David Brooks is not a Christian and I know of Right-wing folk who laugh at the notion that he's a conservative. This represents part of the divide that I've been highlighting for years – the difference between elements of the now almost defunct American Conservatism and the Right-wing Libertarian movement that has largely supplanted it. There's overlap to be sure and people don't fit into neat boxes but there's an ethos about the New Right and now Trumpism that's remarkably different from what American Conservatism was a generation ago.

I often disagree with Brooks and sometimes strongly so, but I will at least listen to what he has to say. Disagreement does not mean that his commentary is utterly lacking any value.

It did not surprise me that in this article he evokes the recent Kristin Kobez Du Mez work 'Jesus and John Wayne' which seems to be generating a lot of press in the larger Evangelical and even secular world. Like Brooks, her commentary is sometimes frustrating and I don't agree with her on many points. That said, there's something to her argument, that a shift in definitions of conservative and Christian masculinity that have taken place. Some of these developments are troubling and some are wedded to the inherent cultural compromise that has always characterised post-war Evangelicalism since its inception. Today, there are many who struggle to understand a masculinity divorced from guns and the culture of violence and 'muscle flexing' and yet a masculinity that also heartily rejects the effeminate trajectory seen in younger generations of men who in growing numbers seem to aspire to never getting their hands dirty and being stay-at-home husbands. Watching the recent Jeopardy College tournament via YouTube has been an experience. The majority of the young men are effeminate and in an earlier generation would have been pegged as homosexuals –whether they are or not.*

This reflects a larger cultural crisis with regard to masculinity. Some talk about the war on boys in the school system and there's some truth to it. I don't always agree with the arguments which seem to suggest less restraint and allowing boys to be more energetic and free ranging in their conduct. I know what they mean, but sometimes what they're describing is simply bad and overly impulsive behaviour. And yet, there's little doubt that boyish behaviour and masculinity in general are discouraged in the school system. Boys are made to feel guilty for being boys. We've noticed the result seems to go in two directions – this is a generalisation of course. We see lots of young men (especially in the Appalachian hinterland where we live) who are semi-literate, unintellectual, crude and rude. They're the types that are willing to get their hands dirty but they're often not the types that would appeal to an employer as they lack basic discretion, sometimes hygiene, and they live by an extreme and frankly destructive libertarian ethos. Many fall prey to drugs and other forms of abuse. Many of them are monsters and if you happen to live near one of them you'll likely want to move to escape the late night escapades, endless revving engines, and shooting guns. For them it's almost as if masculinity is akin to barbarism.

And the alternative that's being produced is represented by variations of the soft boy – the video game unmotivated type, the prissy pop-culture up-talking, sometimes lisping young man who won't grow up and is wholly unsuited to marry or lead a family. I've encountered several in the past few years that barely go outdoors, some won't learn to drive, some have never ridden a bicycle. They live in front of screens. It's a strange cultural type that didn't exist twenty years ago. Even the computer geeks I knew in the 1980's weren't anything like what we're seeing now.

Kobez Du Mez has focused on one aspect of the problem but as a feminist, her analysis is going to be skewed and thus the real issue is just further complicated and confused. The numerous radio shows and podcasts dealing with her book testify to this. It's frustrating on many levels.

Sadly these forces are at work in the Church as the culture-synthesizing Evangelical movement all but invites such influence. Once again rather than influencing the world, what we tend to see is the world transforming the Church. And so to no one's surprise the hyper-masculinity model (which has more in common with Lamech than the apostle Paul) has also entered Church circles and has taken on a particularly odious expression during the Trump period.

It's interesting to read of Russell Moore and some of the other Evangelicals Brooks interacts with. There is a resistance to Christian Trumpism but those that engage in this battle have paid a price. And thus many pulpits remain silent as their hireling pastors are afraid to touch on these issues let alone speak in declarative terms and denounce the heresy that is quickly enveloping the movement.

As far as the apostasies Brooks refers to – in some cases it would seem the faith that was there wasn't much to begin with – as is often the case with the watered down gospel and weak soteriology of Evangelicalism. Admittedly when considering the larger Church scene it is a difficult time and it can be a lonely one. But as I've struggled with these things over the years – long before Trump came on the scene, I've never been tempted to question the faith itself. The problem isn't Christ or the Scriptures. The problem is false teaching and the Scriptures themselves warn us of this. Read 2 Peter chapter 2 if you have any doubt.**

Rather than despair, this is what we should expect. The New Testament picture is by worldly estimations and sensibilities rather bleak. The expectation is one of apostasy and the Old Testament is given to us as an example. Under the Old Order, the people of God had to live through long seasons, even centuries of error, apostasy, and persecution. Desiring to be obedient, there were seasons in which there was effectively no corporate worship, the outward commands of God couldn't be functionally obeyed as the Temple was a seat of idolatry or during the exile, the rites were impossible to keep. Some have constructed theologies which downplay all Divinely ordered means and certainly dash any notion of their spiritual efficacy. This too is an error, a pendulum-swing reaction in the other direction, a theology of accommodation and rationalisation rather than obedience. It infected the Evangelical movement long ago and as such many of its people have turned to alternative pieties and extra-scriptural forms of worship and spirituality. This error laid epistemological and hermeneutical foundation stones which have resulted in the compromised structure we see today.

We should always seek to be obedient in our actions and our understandings even when functionally speaking it is nigh on impossible to do so in a corporate context.

Brooks states:

The proximate cause of all this disruption is Trump. But that is not the deepest cause. Trump is merely the embodiment of many of the raw wounds that already existed in parts of the white evangelical world: misogyny, racism, racial obliviousness, celebrity worship, resentment and the willingness to sacrifice principle for power.

The term proximate is key to his statement. Without it I would disagree. The roots are much deeper and Brooks knows that. And yet, I would question his evocation of misogyny. There is a degree of misogyny at work in some of the Patriarchal movements but they represent a tiny minority within the larger sphere. Brooks at this point is flawed and fails to grasp just how far the Evangelical movement has embraced feminism. He's judging their paltry resistance by the standards of culture and the ever extreme forms of feminism it embraces and promotes. The culture has moved to a new phase of über-feminism and thus when Evangelicalism is viewed from that vantage point (as seen with Kobez Du Mez) then contemporary Evangelicalism seems misogynist. By an earlier generation's metrics today's Evangelicalism is fully feminist. I am even speaking of those within the movement that are viewed as arch-conservatives.

As far as racism in Evangelicalism or perhaps the more appropriate term obliviousness, yes, it's a real problem and does exist though few are able to be honest with themselves. Some of my wife's Evangelical siblings are deeply racist and yet they would be the first to deny it. They're not likely to join the Klan or participate in a lynching but they are nevertheless racist in their attitudes. It's indisputable and they are hardly unique.

And yet the problems are bigger than race and are in fact related to money, power, and the nature of the US system but these discussions are far out of bounds and unable to even be broached in discussion. And frankly many social justice types also miss the mark. Their critiques of the system are shallow and self-serving. They are unwilling to engage in a full-orbed critique and follow through on its implications.  

As far as Evangelical celebrity worship, social resentment, and the willingness to abandon principle for power – these are accurate descriptors of modern Evangelicalism and are at odds with basic Biblical ethics wherein Christians are exhorted to love not the world or the things in it, to despise the pride of life, to take up the cross, to embrace the spoiling of goods, to live as pilgrims and lay up treasures in heaven, and to be willing to give up one's life for the sake of truth. The Evangelical movement which seeks power and views it as a means and an end, rejects these principles and is hostile to them.

The problem is we have a multi-headed hydra running rampant in the Church and apostasy all around.

In terms of the scandals cited by Brooks, they shouldn't surprise us. This is the harvest of mammonism. Power corrupts and money is part of that. Long before these men fell prey to their wicked impulses they had already succumbed to mammonism and the hedonistic ethic it produces – along with all of its rationalisations.

Brooks also touches on an important point. Rather than denounce FOX, talk radio, and the often deeply anti-Christian values they represent hireling Church leaders have encouraged their consumption and have in many cases willingly joined with these forces. And the great irony is that in doing so they have actually undermined their own and certainly Biblical authority. FOX has more influence on Evangelical minds than just about anything else. And FOX is a big swindle that is driven by a political agenda to be sure – but more than anything else it is about making money. As such, truth has little place in the world and ethics of FOX. And yet for many (maybe most) American Evangelicals, FOX represents a core element of their epistemology. Once again, I blame Church leaders. Instead of denouncing these developments twenty-five years ago, they signed on and virtually every one that was given the opportunity quickly whored themselves to this machine in order to tap into the fame and fortune it promised. They're not pastors or Christian leaders, they're mercenaries.

The numbers show how bankrupt the Evangelical movement is. George Barna is a misguided thinker and his opinions are not to be trusted or respected but his surveys are informative as are those conducted by other polling groups. They reveal that Evangelicalism is largely a self-deceived movement. The numbers are inflated and yet few of them really believe or live the creed they supposedly profess. And yet the true believers, the ideologues of the movement are happy to use these people and in fact count on them – their numbers and their money.

The Trumpite era is ripping this movement apart and as I've expressed elsewhere the two options that seem to be emerging are unpalatable. We either have the Right-wing congregations which are all about mammon and guns. While some may embrace the Bible at points they are fatally compromised and despite their supposed moral stands they are worldlings to the core in their values about money, power, and violence, and no Christian can be part of them. It may dominate the pulpit commentary or it may just simply dominate the culture of the congregation. Or it's both.

The other alternative is the world-affirming Middle-Class comfortable therapy and entertainment model of Evangelicalism. Having already embraced feminism and the toleration of sin in their congregations, the well-meant reaction on their part against Trumpism is leading them down an even more extreme road in terms of doctrine and morality. Women's ordination, toleration of cohabitation, and homosexuality are becoming normative and while some of their socio-political and economic views are more moderate they still embrace mammonism even if they dress it up (at times) in the language of social justice.

Neither of these options is acceptable and this is the tragedy of the Trumpite Schisms. The Evangelical movement was already derelict and unbiblical and yet it would seem this epoch may mark its end as a semi-unified movement – and at least the termination of it being a viable (though always less than ideal) option for Biblically minded Christians.

The movement has been fragmenting for years but it seems the many pressures have come to a head and the movement is now headed toward permanent and destructive divides. The statistics regarding pastors wanting to quit is also telling. And while the Church scene has been getting increasingly bad and options have been dwindling, it seems like the past decade has taken the American Church off a cliff. Trump, Covid, and the ethics (or anti-ethics) of Covid were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Brooks tries to paint a picture of a new movement emerging but as already said, the two options that are appearing are both unacceptable. There will be congregations that try to a steer a course between the two and yet if unprincipled the end result will simply be a mess and I've already seen congregations that have attempted this – all but collapse. Or in other cases and I think this is common, pastors are militantly trying to avoid these topics. That too is a farce.

The answers are not going to be found in the 'moderation' of figures like Russell Moore, Karen Swallow Prior, Beth Moore, David French, Kristin Kobez Du Mez, Lecrae, Thabiti Anyabwile, Walter Kim, or Tim Keller.

Nor in the Right-wing radicalism and anti-Christian ethics of figures like JD Hall, Josh Boice, Artur Pawlowski, Jeff Durbin, James White, Kevin Swanson, Doug Wilson, and John MacArthur - and certainly not in the supposed moderation exhibited by leaders like Albert Mohler.

Ironically (or not) many of the names on the list of Right-wing figures are engaged in a war among themselves.

Nor is racial reconciliation going to solve anything as what is often the case is minorities are seeking access and standing. They decry injustice but few are willing to existentially challenge the system and the evil it generates. They're not willing to reject the wealth and power it offers. They simply want access to it or in extreme cases want to appropriate it. This needs to be understood.  And we see this among the minority populations that have become successful and wealthy. They tend to adopt the values of the ruling class and become part of the system that exploits others. This is most poignantly demonstrated in the political realm, the financial sector, and in the judiciary and law enforcement. There is a valid criticism of culture that Christians need to be thinking about but as currently framed, the waters are muddied and the true problems are lost. And as far as the Right goes, they're hostile to any critique because they are deeply committed to the model and personally invested in it. They take such criticisms as personal attacks – which they are.

The truth is Biblically faithful churches that hold the line on these points are going to be few and small. There's some hope in that and a lot of possibility, though at present and in the short term it's going to be rough.

As always, wisdom is what is needed most and yet is seemingly nowhere to be found.

----

*We then watched another college tournament from the early 2000's – before Smartphones and social media and it was interesting. The young men (and women) seemed grounded and normal. It was remarkable and reminded us that we weren't crazy. An unscientific observation to be sure but I'm hardly alone in noticing the cultural shift.

**Again, I would argue the errors dealt with in the epistles are left (deliberately by the Holy Spirit) in somewhat nebulous and generalised terms and as such the core issues are universally applicable. The same is true of the congregational 'types' in Revelation 1-3. They do not represent Church Ages as some have erroneously supposed but rather they are a snapshot of what is going to take place in congregations in the End Times – the period between the First and Second Comings of Christ, i.e. the Church Age. The reader will notice that most of them are in bad shape and receive sharp warnings regarding their congregational status and viability and even their salvation. There's definitely a 'remnant' ethos already at work even by the end of the apostolic period.