Regrettably, today many white evangelical religious believers have found themselves entangled in a web of unfaithfulness to their theological convictions, essentially committing spiritual adultery. While claiming loyalty to church covenants, they have become absorbed in supporting values at odds with long-held religious teachings.
The blending of church and state and the prioritization of political obsession over evangelical spirituality have led to the mainstream acceptance of spiritual adultery, propping up a set of phony political values tied to a cult-like following of a particular flawed political candidate. The once highly regarded evangelical community has seemingly forsaken their rejection of the worship of anyone other than God, as communal worship for a political figure has taken precedence over their long-standing theological convictions. This shift towards political idolatry has overshadowed white evangelical theology, casting a shadow on their claims to high moral standards of Christian faithfulness.
The surprising reality is that a significant percentage of white evangelicals supported a flawed presidential candidate in Donald Trump, leading to a compromise of their religious integrity. Statistics from the 2016 election show that approximately 80 percent of white evangelicals voted for Trump, signifying a significant departure from their traditional values. To address this spiritual and cultural crisis, church leaders need to initiate a shift in messaging, guiding their congregations back towards the core tenets of evangelical Christianity.
There should be a priority to confront and rectify the entanglement of church and state values, restoring the focus on spiritual faithfulness over political allegiances. It's time for a sincere and reflective reevaluation within the white evangelical community, allowing for a return to the fundamental principles of their faith while disentangling from the grip of political idolatry.
By recentering focus on authentic theological convictions and distancing from the trappings of a political cult (Trumpism), white evangelicals can begin healing and reclaiming the integrity of their once highly respected religious identity. In the absence of corrective action, resulting spiritual adultery will diminish church effectiveness.
Johnny Jones
* * *
As we are gaslit and shamed into thinking that our support for Donald Trump for president is heresy, we as Christians must not be shamed or bullied out of our right to participate in this election and our backing for the one who we think who can best run the country.
It's clear that Donald Trump is a sinner and the Word of God tells us that if one says they are without sin they are a liar and the Truth is not in them. We are not electing him as our pastor, priest or spiritual leader, we are seeking someone who is willing to represent our views and beliefs of the
interpretation and defense of the Constitution, and again, we are warned not to judge not lest we be judged.
I realize that the only thing that so many have is talking points of fear and cover ups of the present administration and we must not bow down or submit to that fear. The way I see it, it's not in what others say, it is about the previous actions and results that counts.
During his first Presidency he proved his commitment to Israel (which should be a prerequisite for all Christians) and did what so many had said that they would do in recognizing Jerusalem as the Capitol of Israel and furthermore establishing our embassy there. Now we could go further into this
discussion with the aftermath, response and pressure on Israel to submit to the demands of Hamas after they followed through with their declaration of war against Israel on 10/7 but we can save that for later.
Now so many will parrot Trump's "impeachments" and lawfare "convictions" to justify their distain and, may I take it further, their hatred for him. It is my opinion that this constant din of "Orange Man bad" has led to his second assassination attempt and it's not about the rhetoric of Donald Trump, it's the constant harping of the mainstream media and those willing further that message against him that has led to the state of hatred for him.
We furthermore see the how the Democrats are using the repeal of Roe vs. Wade as a rallying call to support for Harris and if you are a pro-abortion "Christian", what don't you understand about "thou shall not kill"?
As I come to a conclusion, I know that fear has been sown in getting people to not vote and to motivate them to vote. But let's be honest, we must not allow others to fear or shame us out of our convictions and our vote for Donald Trump.
Jay Reed
* * *
Mr. Jones,
Are we to vote for the devil so as not to vote for a flawed Christian?
Tim Sinor
* * *
So you rail against voting for a flawed and imperfect man, yet you seem to support a person who advocates and tries to justify the murder of unborn children. No thank you, I'll chose life.
Bill Foust
* * *
I am not advocating, and no one should be advocating that anyone, including Christians, should not vote their conscience. Everyone should. The problem is that tax-exempt churches should be politically neutral. They can lawfully teach that parishioners should vote based on principles and policies that are in agreement with the principles advocated by that denomination or even personally by the pastor, but they should refrain from endorsing any particular person or policy. If they do, their tax-exempt status should be revoked.
John Odom
* * *
Contrary to Mr. Reed’s and Mr. Sinor’s letters, I agree with Mr. Jones. I don’t believe that Mr. Jones letter was disparaging to all Christians. I see his letter as an admonition to those who misuse Christianity to loudly proclaim their political point.
The misuses are (1) vocalizing his or her political beliefs ahead of his or her Christian beliefs, and (2) his or her political beliefs are “supporting values at odds with long-held religious teachings.”
While Mr. Jones may see things differently, among things I see contrary to Christian beliefs are:
Christianity is within politics, or Christianity is politics and Christians should control the government (merging of church and state); espousing that this is a Judeo-Christian nation, even if those values appear within the Declaration of Independence and Constitution; and believing the Republican candidate (1) was anointed by God, (2) is a reincarnation of some minor Old Testament king, (3) will be elected as part of God’s will for America, (4) is a sign from God of the return of Jesus Christ to earth and (5) survived assassination attempts only because of God's will.
By the way, does God will students to die at school by fire from semi-automatic weapons?
Collectively, I’ll describe beliefs as “God’s will arguments”, and I’m sure there are many more examples.
If making an “anointment by God” argument or “God’s will for America” argument, shouldn’t those people believe that President Biden “anointed by God” and was elected as part of “God’s will for America”?
Or do they use those two arguments only when their candidate wins? Assuming no third party on the ballot, Boolean logic dictates that there is only a winner and loser. While not stated, do they believe their loser lost because of the Biblical forces of darkness and evil?
I want to respond to Mr. Reed, taking Christianity out of my response.
One definition of gaslighting is a type of psychological abuse that involves manipulating someone into questioning his or her reality, memories or perceptions. I’ve learned there are four types of gaslighting: outright lying, manipulation of reality, scapegoating and coercion.
But what someone calls gaslighting may actually be facts intended to counter a closed mind. A closed-minded person will not question the truthfulness or accuracy of what he or she hears. Most likely, because of the source, that closed-minded person would quickly arrive at the term gaslighting.
I can credibly identify Fox and other right-wing media as experts in gaslighting Democrats, since I do not solely rely on other media to learn. Yet, what Democrats learn is gaslighting, close-minded people believe as the truth.
An example within provided by Mr. Reed is his stating that the current administration is the cause of fear because of talking points and cover-ups. What facts prove that statement to be true? Another example is his statement that “so many will parrot Trump's "impeachments" and lawfare "convictions" to justify their distain.” By using the verb “parrot”, Mr. Reed is trying to lead the reader to infer that impeachments and “lawfare convictions” should have no influence on how he or she votes.
Who is attempting to gaslight whom?
Mr. Reed is also of the opinion that “it's not in what others say, it is about the previous actions and results that counts.” I disagree because it is impossible to fully learn based upon one’s singular efforts. We all learn from the learning of others.
Mr. Reed concludes his letter with condescension of Democrats. His believes the “constant din of "Orange Man bad" has led to his second assassination attempt . . .” just hours after that attempt makes that assumption with only the initial knowledge of what happened. He blames hatred for his candidate because of “the constant harping of the mainstream media and those willing further that message against him”. He also wants to coerce (a type of gaslighting) the pro-abortion "Christian" by implying all abortions are unacceptable based on the Old Testament.
I’ll conclude by responding to Mr. Sinor and Mr. Bill Foust.
As I said above, the whole purpose of Mr. Jones letter is an admonition (1) that some Christians are vocalizing his or her political beliefs ahead of his or her Christian beliefs, and (2) for those Christians, vocalizing his or her political beliefs are “supporting values at odds with long-held religious teachings.
Mr. Sinor, Mr. Jones letter is not asking for a yes or a no on voting for a particular candidate. He is expressing his opinion.
Mr. Foust, Mr. Jones' did describe your candidate as flawed. Today, your candidate is more flawed than ever.
Mr. Jones has a First Amendment right to express his opinion; if you took offense, too bad.
Joe Warren