Behind the fervent voices that sway a party’s politics

Episode transcript

Gail Chaddock: For those of us who grew up in the Billy Graham era, it wasn’t obvious why evangelical voters in 1980 would choose Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter, America’s “Evangelical in chief,” or why so many would support Donald Trump, if not in 2016, emphatically in 2024. They would of course back the candidate most like Billy Graham, we knew that.

Of course, we didn’t know evangelical voters. And we didn’t listen. 

This is “Why We Wrote This.” I’m this week’s guest host, Gail Chaddock. We’re talking with Harry Bruinius, who writes on culture and politics for The Christian Science Monitor out of New York. He’s been a frequent guest on this podcast, most recently on the power of gratitude, which we asked him to talk about twice. 

And he does know evangelical voters. We’re talking with him today about his cover story, “Meet the post-Evangelical Christians. They’re just getting started.” 

Harry, welcome to this podcast. 

Harry Bruinius: Hi Gail, thanks so much.

Chaddock: Can we start with who are post-Evangelical Christians, and why is it important to tell their story now?

Bruinius: The story that I wrote was specifically about  a number of people who are sort of redefining their evangelicalism while at the same time leaving it. I thought it was really interesting and very rich in a way that they decided to keep the name evangelical as they start to consciously label themselves post-Evangelicals. So in this sense, you know, it means a couple of things that there’s something that they really want to hold on with the evangelical identity. Specifically, I think the close encounter and the experience with Jesus. However, on the other hand, they’re also part of a wave of, I think, younger Evangelicals.

Children that are growing up in evangelical households are leaving the faith in droves, in fact, and the younger evangelicals even say, under 35, you know, are starting to rethink some of the theological tenets surrounding LGBTQ+ issues, race issues, and patriarchy and sexism. You might even add anti intellectualism in addition to that as the things that they had told me. 

Chaddock: Anyone who reads your reporting for The Christian Science Monitor would never think of Evangelicals as a block, as in everybody thinks alike, everybody is alike, uh, they’re not thinking for themselves. Every piece comes out with, uh, a different sense about that. 

Bruinius: Well, I was going to say, you know, that of course, evangelicalism as, you know, a phenomenon in the United States is so diverse, um, culturally diverse as well as to a certain extent theologically diverse. So it’s even hard to kind of pin that down. The people that are identifying themselves as post-Evangelicals want to hold on to something of that, before they leave and, you know, there’s an array of choices.

There are liberal mainline churches, there are progressive congregations and just independents that have progressive theological points of view. And so I think what is interesting and unique about the post-Evangelicals is that they don’t want to join something else.

They want to retain the way they’ve understood their relationship with Jesus.

Chaddock: I remember as a kid watching this on television, some of Billy Graham’s events, and being so struck with the fervency, the life that you appeared to see in that movement wasn’t just intellectual. It was a powerful part of their experience, and many wanted to be part of that. I can see why giving it up might not be all that easy. How did you locate the people that you talked to? 

Bruinius: I had long talked to David Gushee, who is a professor at Emory University. And he had long been considered one of the kind of preeminent evangelical ethicists in the United States. His textbooks were widely used in evangelical schools. He was really considered kind of a young emerging scholar with a really unique point of view.

And he had written a book named “Changing Our Minds,” where he gave a biblical defense of same sex relationships and same sex marriage. And as I say in my story, he even wanted to invite LGBTQ people into a very traditional understanding of the relationship between a married couple and inviting them into a lifelong committed relationship. And things obviously kind of exploded, but I think he became sort of a leader. So, he introduced me to people that were asking similar questions and having similar journeys and And then of course you talk to one and then you ask them who else are they talking to so that kind of begins, you know a domino effect.  

Chaddock: Harry, how does your own background in the evangelical tradition or evangelicalism shape your reporting? 

Bruinius: Ah, Gail, that’s such an interesting question. I don’t consider myself an Evangelical. I would probably be identified among the growing numbers of “nones,” um, N-O-N-E-S, who, you know, have a spiritual point of view, but not necessarily defined by a historic religious tradition. So I have questions about people’s spiritual journeys. So I cover religion in that way because it’s part of my own story of questioning and moving to a different place and through different traditions to become someone new. And, you know in some ways that’s the evangelical paradigm.

To be born again, what does that mean? It means to be changed, to be transformed, to live in a different kind of way. There’s sort of an ethos that draws me. In some ways, too,  it’s my people. And I want to…you know, I, again, not necessarily represent my people, but portray them in a way that displays the love that I have for my people, my family, where I came from. 

Chaddock: Now, I’m guessing here, but I’m thinking that most Evangelicals in a political context are used to the question: why are you supporting Donald Trump?

Bruinius: Yeah. 

Chaddock: What do you ask people when you really want to understand where they’re coming from and if possible, get their trust?

Bruinius: Every time I approach someone who’s sharing their story, you know, not simply for a soundbite or an expert comment, but to really share who they are, what their experiences are, how they’ve changed because of certain experiences, I want to listen. Let them explain. And, when I’m asking questions, especially in this era of hyper partisanship and in which issues that are important to Evangelicals right now surrounding human sexuality and gender can be touchy. And partly I ask people to just explain how they feel, why they feel the way they feel, and why it’s important to them.

I think most people are such used to hostility in these sorts of interactions with these sorts of subjects that when someone approaches them interested in what they have to say, and interested in why they believe in what they believe. People don’t want to feel judged.

And, when they’re given the space, most people are eager to give a reasonable explanation of why they feel what they feel.

Chaddock: These are high stakes issues, especially for pastors. Were there many that you spoke to who were reluctant to go on the record on these issues for fear of the backlash from their congregations?

Bruinius: Yes. I think there’s still a process happening and, you know, sometimes it gets really, really reactionary. Both at the pulpit, and in congregations. And the polarization that we see in the country surrounding politics has certainly invaded many congregations, and I think especially evangelical congregations. We’re seeing, I think, even over the last decade, there’s a reshuffling happening, and I think sociologists, as well as observers, theologians, journalists, looking at the religious landscape in the country today, see such churn and such movement.

And yet, you know, part of the irony is, even as Evangelicals, you know, the data seems to show that, in terms of numbers, they’re on the decline, and yet have a powerful grasp of the Republican Party. I think it’s fair to say that white evangelical Protestants are the dominant force in the Republican Party, and they dominate primaries and caucuses and come up with nominees that reflect their values and their concerns.

And you can certainly say that Donald Trump has staked his political life on Evangelicals, and Evangelicals tell me that, you know, they feel Donald Trump is on their side and that means the most to them.

Chaddock: We’re recording this podcast after the Iowa caucuses, and it’s interesting because some of the early reporting in Iowa went to the usual suspects. They knew that Evangelicals would be important, so who do you go to? The evangelical leaders who in the past have, in effect, selected the nominee out of Iowa, rallying their troops behind it.

That didn’t happen in Iowa.

Bruinius: No.

Chaddock: The evangelical leadership urged votes for Trump rivals, especially DeSantis. For a reporter, that’s a real problem. You go into a place and you plan to talk to the leaders and then you discover the leaders really don’t know, uh, how the followers are going to follow.

What do you think happened there and how do you think reporters in the future need to cover a movement in transition like this?

Bruinius: It’s interesting you ask this question again here, what, 2024? In 2016, we were asking the same questions because evangelical leaders mostly denounced Trump, especially at first, and you often see there are some very visible exceptions of the evangelical leaders and pastors who support Trump, of whom there are many, including televangelists, you know, like Paula White, but if you talk to presidents of evangelical institutions, you don’t see that kind of support.

So, but then you see overwhelming support among their congregations and their flocks and that has not waned. We’ll see how this plays out.

Chaddock: How do Evangelicals you talk to think about leadership? Is there respect for the current so-called leaders, or is this something that journalists have made up in a way? We’re imposing a sense of authority on a movement that really doesn’t react that way.

People seem to leave churches very quickly if they suddenly are uncomfortable with something that the leader and the church had said, does the same thing apply to the movement?

Bruinius: I think at the grassroots level and even at the congregational level with pastors, there’s more of a cohesiveness. And, you know, in Protestant churches, a congregation calls a minister. One is not appointed for them. So congregations choose their minister, and they can choose people that they want – and that will reflect their theological and cultural points of view. Some of the larger leaders that I was thinking of that really rejected Trump then, you know, the whole “Never Trump” movement that, that includes Evangelicals, but, for people themselves, the leadership that they want is, I think, culturally, this very strong and dominant, very masculine figure who’s not afraid to break taboos, especially verbally. That excites people, it really does, that he will fight the elites in a way. I think what most Trump supporters have said to me more than anything else, is that he talks to us the way we talk to each other and we believe in him.

Chaddock: That’s interesting. There’s an ad that surfaced, initially it was reported as an ad by the Trump campaign, but from what I’ve read subsequently it was basically an ad that was sent to him and that he passed along on social networking called “God Made Trump,” and it’s a play on a poem that I heard read recently at the funeral of a farmer, you know, “God Made a Farmer.”

It’s disturbing in a political context because it appears to assign kind of Christ-like or messianic qualities to a political figure and it also has a kind of militaristic feel to it anticipating Armageddon and here’s the alarming part, even looking forward to it. That may be an exaggeration on my part but do you sense that kind of undercurrent recently, identifying Trump himself with a messianic function or Mission, and anticipating much deeper conflict.

Bruinius: I think that’s a difficult question because I see two different things happening. On the one hand, yes, I have seen that. On the other hand, there is also a very strong sense that this may not be about Trump and that if Trump isn’t the leader, the movement will continue.  And I think I see most of that discussion online, not in face to face conversations in which I usually see people really with a deep and abiding affection for former president Trump.  And yet at the same time, there seems to be a significant number of people that see that it’s not necessarily a cult of Trump, but a war against the usual suspects.

Chaddock: I’m wondering, too, part of the commentary about this very unusual political campaign where, the leading contender doesn’t debate, doesn’t show up in person in many instances at all, and you’re hearing things like, well, it’s not Trump the candidate that is arousing  all of this support, it’s Trump viewed as persecuted. 

You know, under siege by a judicial system that is not treating him fairly. And that is reminiscent, of course, of the way Jesus was himself treated. What journalists expected would be a liability. Being in court half the time during your campaign, could that possibly, at least for this group, turn out to be an advantage?

Because what they see as persecution as confirmation that this is a good man doing important work? 

Bruinius: Yeah. I’m not going to say advantage, but what I say is that it fits into a narrative that resonates,  including a long suspicion of elites and intellectual elites in evangelical traditions. I think that’s maybe part of a, you might say, a sociological bullet point of evangelicalism, that it includes a suspicion of academia and intellectual elites, and, you know, that goes back to the Scopes Trial, but people are definitely drawn to his charisma and you know what, the fact that he can stand against culture and stand against elites in a way and appear to what, well he never really is.

He doesn’t back down, and yeah, you can see how that could be inspiring from a point of view of people who feel reviled and despised by the larger culture and by elites. Donald Trump, too, is despised and reviled by the same elites.

Chaddock: Very, very interesting point. In your experience, has the fusion of faith and right wing politics come at the expense of faith?

Bruinius: Certainly. the people that I talk to in this story, post-Evangelicals, have first found this fusion of faith and politics to be deeply disturbing and one of my sources even said at first he was like, no, I’m going to be apolitical as a pastor and I’m not going to re engage the way he had while he was serving in evangelical congregations that were hosting debates for the primary. This was in Texas. But he changed his mind about that and now he is sort of becoming a left wing progressive activist from an evangelical perspective.

In fact, another bullet point that defines evangelicalism is a focus on political activism. Uh, going back to the anti-slave movement, certain Evangelicals and Quakers – [you] might call them proto-Evangelicals at the time – led the fight against the slave trade and slavery. I went to Wheaton College in Illinois, which was a stop on the Underground Railroad.

So the activism isn’t new in evangelical traditions. You could even say, well, we do say that it helps define what being an evangelical is.

Chaddock: Harry, thank you for your reporting. I had the time to go back and read just about everything you’ve written on evangelicalism going back to 2018, I think was one of the first I saw. You are way ahead of the curve. The questions you were asking back then are just coming up now, and I’m really grateful for your work and for the opportunity to talk with you today.

Thank you.

Bruinius: Thank you, Gail. That means a lot.

Chaddock: And thanks to our listeners. You can find more, including our show notes, with a link to the stories we discussed in this podcast, at CSMonitor.com/WhyWeWroteThis. This episode was hosted by me, Gail Chaddock, edited and produced by Mackenzie Farkus and Clay Collins. Our sound engineers were Tim Malone and Alyssa Britton, with original music by Noel Flatt, produced by The Christian Science Monitor, copyright 2024.