I think this piece wildly misunderstands the reason why white conservative Christians (Evangelicals in particular) need to pretend Trump is Christlike and why they’re so hateful toward women and minorities.
They believe in a bastardized version of Christianity that’s reverse engineered from their biases. It does not teach compassion but gives them permission to judge people they don’t like and punish them for deviations from conservative norms. It has never been rooted in service to others
The proposition Liz makes, which does strike me as a wishcasting, is that these people totally reform their understanding of Christianity which they have no desire to do and won’t do.
Instead they cherry pick and misinterpret Bible verses that give them permission to harm others. When they talk about freedom, they mean freedom to do harm and control others, not individual freedom to make your own choices. If they didn’t they’d view bodily autonomy, for example, as sacrosanct.
The kind of Christianity they practice is uniquely American, socially regressive, and conflates a jingoistic and shallow Patriotism with a god ordained national destiny
It’s not Christianity in any real theological sense, and the kind of compassionate Christianity Liz talks about has zero appeal for them. It would strip them of their self righteous determination to punish others for perceived sins and would require sacrifices they don’t want to make
I don't know about this... can you point to a time in history when an explicitly Christian society lived up to these ideals? Otherwise it feels like a No True Scotsman fallacy. From the outside, it looks like internecine religious disagreement 🤷🏻♀️
There’s never been an time when it did. That’s not an argument I’m making. I just think the white Evangelicalism movement here is better explained by American power dynamics than anything in the Bible.
Sure, but you could make that argument about any era and social context for Christianity. I'm not saying the American Christian right isn't toxic, just gently pushing back on the instinct to call it "not really Christianity." Like the Crusaders were Christians! and mass murderers and pogromists
To be more specific it’s not the Christianity they *say* they practice. Lotta people with “love thy neighbor” in their bios have happily told me to get raped because they don’t like my politics.
Lotta people view the ultimate act of love as keeping other people out of an eternity of hellfire, via their very specific definitions of sin. I don't think arbiting theology is a useful approach -- it's a dual edged sword for one thing!
I'm not; i don't care about the theology. I'm just pointing out the difference between what they say they believe and what they do and prioritize, and the real reasons they identify with Christianity.
There is a powerful tension between considering something entirely an in-group theological matter and when those same groups openly & publicly declare their aim to forcibly impose their views upon the public sphere. They don't do the latter quietly but openly and with justificatory rhetoric.
You're not pointing out the difference between what they say they believe and what they do and prioritize - you're pointing out the difference between what *you expect the words they say to mean* and what they mean with those words.1/
I believe that is what Talia and others are trying to get you to understand. That just because you have expectations that "actions and behaviors correspond to loving actions" doesn't mean people who *are not you* have those exact same expectations.2/2
