My wife grew up in Iowa, so we have followed the hoopla around tonight’s Iowa caucus with more than casual interest. As students at Iowa State in Ames in the early 70’s, we actually attended the caucuses in February, 1974 for that presidential election. I remember the give and take arguments that night.
This year a particular question for my wife has been, “Where are all these evangelicals the media keep talking about?” She grew up along the Mississippi River in eastern Iowa, and never experienced the super-religious culture that increasingly seems to dominate the political conversation in Iowa, at least on the Republican side.
Just today we discovered that eastern Iowa has fewer evangelical Christians than just about anywhere in the country outside the Northeast. So, she wasn’t crazy after all! But this leads to a larger perplexing question. What has happened to evangelicals who seem to swoon over Donald Trump, who is clearly not an evangelical himself nor a model of evangelical values in any way that makes sense to me. What about such basic biblical values as integrity and humility? What about Jesus’ injunction that caring for “the least of these” sick, poor, and hungry is caring for him? What about “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall?” (Proverbs 16:18)
Perhaps a partial answer is the “God gap.” This “God gap” is relatively new, discovered by social scientists such as Robert Putnam of Harvard. “American history teaches us that religion is neither exclusively left nor right, progressive nor conservative.” For example, “Religion was invoked on both sides of the slavery debate in the 19th century, and it was a vital piece of both Prohibition and the progressive movement.”
Currently, say Putnam and others, the issue is not denominational or political affiliation but a measure of “religiosity,” which is composed of the frequency of church attendance, sense of belonging, and depth of belief. The higher the religiosity quotient, the more (apparently) a person votes Republican (with Black Protestants, who often vote Democratic, an important exception).
So, back to Iowa. I’ve read that Trump’s appeal to evangelicals is somehow mixed. Could he, perhaps, be more welcomed by those lower on the religiosity scale—those who are perhaps are less committed to biblical values and more open to be swayed by outsized personality or popular positions? Or has “persona” become so important now that evangelicals are unwilling or unable to make discriminations?
In earlier Iowa caucuses, such figures as Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee won with big evangelical support because evangelicals clearly recognized them as one of their own. It’s paradoxical that evangelicals would get behind Trump, who is clearly not one of their own.
Analysis I’ve heard indicates Trump is particularly appealing to independents, and they don’t caucus. I’ve been appalled by what the Republican candidates claim — like the country being founded on Biblical/Christian values. If I’m not mistaken, we were founded on principles of religious freedom.
Kris, nice to hear from you! I’d guess you might be looking forward to the political theater moving away from your front door to offer you some peace.
To say this country wasn’t founded on Christianity but rather religious freedom contradicts the Christian affiliation of the major individuals considered to be our founding fathers. There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 “slots” or “positions” in these groups which one can classify as “Founding Fathers” of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of “Founding Fathers.” These are the people who did one or more of the following:
– signed the Declaration of Independence
– signed the Articles of Confederation
– attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
– signed the Constitution of the United States of America
– served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
– served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress
The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an “American Founding Father.” But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.
Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers
# of
Founding
Fathers
% of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204
Could not agree more with the statement regarding persona and making discrimations. As a native Midwesterner I am always amazed when my friends in Christ (on the left coast) automatically assume I’m a Republican because I am a Christian.
There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville
Jennifer, thanks for your comment! Great to hear from you!
It has always sickened me when candidates use so called religious beliefs to try and sway voters, all the while living lives that are in total opposition to what Christ preached like loving and caring for their neighbors. I also agree with Jennifer that all too often people are sure you must be a republican if you are a Christian. I personally have never been a big “party” person, instead try to vote for whomever I feel most closely reflects the values I hold dear. It can be a definite paradox, at times because both sides often stand for something I do not agree with, along with some that I do. I just wish more so called Christian candidates reflected more of Christ’s love in their viewpoints.
Kathy, thanks for the great comment! You hit the nail on the head about the paradox–our polarized political landscape wants to assume one party is “always right” and the other “always wrong” when, for some of us, each party has elements we agree with so its not so black and white. Hope you’ll keep following and offering your thoughts!