Lot of discussion on Daily Kos about the Christianity Today article calling on (white) evangelicals to dump Trump because he's immoral and hurting the church. Since the article has been so widely discussed and disseminated, there should be no need to link it here, but if you haven't read it yet, look it up. I'm interested not in what they said, but why they said it, and why now.
It had nothing to do with Jesus.
It had everything to do with numbers, in terms of membership, money and in a word: power .
As noted in a link from the Abbreviated Pundit Round-up by Greg Dworkin, numbers are down in terms of those saying they are "born again" in 2011 and those in 2017 saying the same thing. It's striking to me, being over age 65, that "born again" numbers in that age cohort are down by a fifth in just six years, and down the most of all age groups. You would think those closer to dying (from old age, at least) and thus those closer to death in age would tend, as they always have, to get more religious, more conservative, and more giving to churches and religious organizations as they age out.
Ryan Burge, Voter Study Group 2011-2017
But not only have numbers saying they are born again gone down; something has also happened to charitable giving going to religious organizations.
In 2016, before President Best Friend of (white) Evangelicals Ever took office, religious organizations got 32% of all charitable giving. That's some 125 billion in gifts.
In 2017, gifts to religious organizations rose to 127.4 billion, but made up only 31% of all giving. In inflation adjusted terms of constant dollars, charity to religious organizations actually fell a bit in real terms. 2017 was a record year, on the other hand, for overall charity to all types of groups.
In 2018, the last year we have information about, giving to religious organizations fell to 124.5 billion, down over 4% in real terms (minus 2.2% nominal and minus 2.1% for inflation), and made up just 29.1% of all charitable giving. Such giving actually rose overall in nominal terms and fell only slightly when adjusted for inflation in overall giving, so this divergence is really striking. Charity in 2018
I can't wait to see the numbers for charitable giving in 2019, but I'll bet they are down again for the religious sector, and that means the religious sector is likely really feeling the pinch from their hypocrisy, right where their hearts have been: in numbers of faithful in the pews and in dollars given to the church.
And I'll bet if you distinguish "evangelical" religious organizations from the other religious groups that actually practice what they preach, the number changes in giving and attendance are even more striking. But I can't find the data to back that up, though it probably has to be out there.
But the really stunning number is what has happened to giving to religious organizations since they began swearing fealty more to Republicans than to Jesus, and when many of them gave up piety for power. In 1987, the proportion of all charitable donations going to religious organizations was 53%.
Just to remind, it's now barely 29% and dropping. Funny how when you give up your principles, you end up losing.
There may be a lesson here. Democrats thinking of compromising our principles and programs in order to "beat Trump" in 2020 should probably take note. Down that road lies ruin.
This is not a purity test so much as learning from the example of other groups dependent on volunteers and giving that compromised for the sake of power.
Compromise with ourselves (fellow Democrats) in terms of details and timing. Sure. Compromise with Republicans in standing up for the poor, workers and the middle class, and fighting for economic and social justice, civil rights and against climate change and reckless deregulation: absolutely no.
We need fewer Van Drew/Tulsi Gabbard "moderates" who are really Republicans and who will betray us when push gets to shove. We need more of the "non-voter" masses and young people who have had a hard time telling the parties apart when they are engaged in a bidding war for money from banks, corporations and billionaires.
As Jesus once said: Choose you this day whom you will serve. You cannot serve two masters.
The proof is in the numbers.
And just to seal the case. When President Obama offered a "grand bargain" to Republicans, offering to cut Social Security and appointed the "catfood commission" to work out the deal, Democrats lost overwhelmingly. That was 2010, when Republicans ran to our left, saying they would "protect" Social Security and claiming Democrats cut Medicare by 700 billion to fund the ACA. (A lie, but that's what they said.)
In 2018, Democrats ran on protecting the ACA, protecting and expanding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and on increasing the minimum wage and fighting climate change. They won, overwhelmingly in the House and took the vast majority of Senate seats up in 2018, losing only a net of two Senate seats. Coincidentally(?) those two seats lost were held by our most conservative "moderates" who slammed "crazy leftists" as well as the far right in an attempt to paint themselves as reasonable compromisers.
The one Senate Democrat running in deep red territory who stood up unreservedly for Democratic values, Sherrod Brown. Well he won, and by a nice margin.
Sticking with your principles pays. The guys at Christianity Today recognized that, a bit too late.
EDIT: ADDED Saturday afternoon.
My wife (hat tip, mylady) pointed out that Christian Post in Feb. 2016 printed an article warning against evangelicals supporting Trump. “Donald Trump is a Scam. Evangelical Voters should Back Away” Christianity Today versus Christian Post
So not all (white) evangelicals embraced Trump until he was impeached. Kudos to them. But it’s also interesting that the most popular article today on the Christian Post, which claims to be the most widely read evangelical Christian site, is Why I Still Stand by 45. No repentance here
And you can read the comments there if you want a flavor of their reaction to Christianity Today’s call out of Trump.